Stalling - Help & Advice

[flyboy1971]

Hi,

I really could use some advice regarding Stalling and the fear of! I've stalled the plane (C152 Aerobat) in the past, no problem, apart from one ocassion where a control input put the plane into a spin. Since then, I just cannot get my head around it - i've built up an inexplicable fear of the stall and the associated unusual attitude that this is now becoming a blocker to my doing my test.

Any advice/help/words of wisdom. I need to get this done!

[Aspiring Pilot Alex]

I was in the same situation as yourself when I did my stall recovery training. What helped me was that my instructor offered to give me a lesson dedicated to spinning. When I was comfortable recovering from spins, stalls were a piece of cake. It's a shame spinning isn't in the syllabus as I found it really helpful.

Best of luck!

Alex

[foxmoth]

Given your location I would suggest a trip to Kemble and do the stall/spin course at UH, this will definitely teach you that both are nothing to be frightened of if you know what to do, will teach you how to recover from and avoid both and ensure that you can stall without getting into a spin.
Edited to say that seeing you are still doing your licence, try and do this with your instructor, much of the posts below give reasonable guidance. As Ghengis says lower down, doubt if it is actually a spin being a Cessna, but if you do a spin lesson learning both that and spiral dive, see the difference and how to recover from both you should get over your fears.

[taxistaxing]

I was struggling with it on revalidation my ppl recently. What helped me was when I was shown how gentle the recovery is in a 152. No need to shove the column forward just ease it to neutral and full power. That way you only lose 200 feet or so and it feels quite gentle. Get the instructor to show you a few. And don't go near the rudder when recovering!

[The500man]

And don't go near the rudder when recovering!

Well that's an interesting piece of advice!

[Pilot DAR]

Practice some extreme slow flight, with the stall horn just screaming, and lots of power on. Just keep the plane balanced there. You will get the feel of the pitch forces very near the stall, and the required precision of control in roll and yaw. If it breaks in the stall while doing this, pull off the power, and recover normally. As you practice this you will realize that you can enter or recover that stall at will.

The 152's stall warning horn is particularly good for this, as it will produce an intensifying sound with the deeping approach to the stall.

As for the recovery with lots of altitude, what's the worst that can happen? You're pointed down, recovering form a dive - that's okay.....

[Cows getting bigger]

The stall is nothing to be afraid of, especially in a simple aircraft such as a 152.

Lots of good advice here, some not-so-good. As pilotDAR says, with an instructor, try a bit of slow flight at a reasonable altitude. Get the feel of the aircraft and recognize the various signs and symptoms. Notably, reduced responsiveness of the controls, yaw and buffet. Try and fly on the 'edge ' of the stall warner and then make some control inputs noting how the stall warner reacts. Finally, do a clean stall and recovery with no power. To start with, you can do this with no control input during recovery other than elevator. Say to yourself "centrally forward" and force yourself not to use aileron. Note how you only need to pitch down to an attitude where the horizon is about half way up the windscreen; there is no need for frantic inputs and death defying dives. Get comfortable with this, lots. If a wing drops during the process, don't worry, just concentrate on getting the right attitude ("centrally forward") and, once the aircraft has gained flying 'speed' then you can sort out any wing drop that may have developed.

Once you are comfortable with this, you should progress on to making the stall recovery more efficient. This is done by introducing power at the appropriate point and, for finesse, using rudder to arrest any wing drop that is developing. However, never forget that the only way you are going to get out of a stall is to get the wings working again. This is done by ensuring they are both at angle angle of attack where they provide lift, ie from your bum up through your head -"centrally forward".

Finally, you are not alone, there are many pilots and instructors who are unnecessarily afraid of the slow speed regime. Yes, treat it with respect but that is all. It is only when you progress on to far more fanciful aircraft that the stall can lead to some interesting things.

[taxistaxing]

Yep I was told leave the rudder alone as this can initiate a spin. Equally if a wing drops, nose down and then roll the wings level with the aileron.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Ah, one of my mastermind specialist subjects!


The stall occurs when one of two things happens - either flow separation on one or more of the wings, or the stick is fully back and the aeroplane held on the back of the drag curve. Either way, the aeroplane isn't fully controllable, and is losing a lot of height - neither of which are happy conditions.

One or more of the following may mark the stall:

- Wing rocking
- Wing drop
- Nose-down pitching motion
- Aeroplane held nose-up, usually with the yoke fully back.
- Very high rate of descent (this is pretty much universal)

In any aeroplane you are likely to ever get your hands on, the solution to all of these is absolutely the same.

(1) Move the stick forwards.

Don't do it sharply, don't go a long way, basically relax any back pressure, and bring the stick roughly to the middle.

That's it, the aeroplane is now flying again and under control. Technically, no other action is needed.


There is a second issue however, which is the loss of height, and if you manage to stall at low level, you particularly want to reduce that. Hence the second thing you ideally want to do

(2) Apply full throttle (and if you had it on, shove the carb heat knob back in).


Done reasonably promptly these will between them unstall the aeroplane, and minimise height loss. Then it's just a case of bringing the aeroplane back to a shallow climb, or level flight attitude (if in doubt, go for the climb) and once the aeroplane is level or climbing, bring power an pitch back to a normal flying condition.

There are four big things that you can do wrong.

(1) Not move the stick forward straight away
(2) Increase power before you move the stick forward, or fail to use full power.
(3) Try to pick up any wing drop BEFORE the wing is unstalled.
(4) Fail to keep the ball in the middle (do this with the rudder, and you don't actually need to look at the ball - you should be able to feel if it's out of balance by a sense of sideways movement).

That is basically it for ensuring your safety; after that, any other subtleties are subtleties about elegant flying and impressing instructors. But on those subtleties:-

- Don't push the stick forward to far or too fast, or you'll bunt and/or lose too much height still.
- Don't wait for recovery, do it as soon as you see or hear symptoms of the stall.
- Don't expect all aeroplanes,all the time, to pitch nose-down (especially at forwards CG conditions)
- If you had flaps on, raise them only in stages, at a good speed and safe height and whilst climbing.
- Remember that wing drop won't do you any harm, just take care not to try and raise the wing until the aeroplane is fully unstalled.


The stall is not dangerous, and the spin entirely avoidable. The ONLY thing likely to kill you is stalling very low (that is, below 500ft), and failing to take proper actions. In other words, it's only the height loss that is a problem.

I've spun C152 - and you have to try very hard to get one into it - I *suspect* that all you saw was a bit of wind drop, and perhaps what might have eventually become a spin if uncorrected (called the "incipient spin"). There are aeroplanes where this is something you need to be a little careful of, but not a C152.

G

[The500man]

taxistaxing, fair enough. I think what you are describing though is more of an unusual attitude recovery, which although includes stalls is not entirely relevant to the OP.

In the context of this thread I would say that a "recovery" is going to include a full power climb back to entry altitude, which will require a significant rudder input.

Flying in balance in the first place will most likely prevent wing drop and that too will require use of the rudder.

However, never forget that the only way you are going to get out of a stall is to get the wings working again. This is done by ensuring they are both at angle angle of attack where they provide lift

Also never forget that lift is still produced above the stall AoA!

EDIT: I just complained about nit picking in another thread and now I've just done it myself! Sorry, I know what you meant. :ok:

[taxistaxing]

Ok. Would you say rudder only once the stall has been recovered? I.e. nose forward, power on, roll wings level and neutralise yaw once recovered and climb established? I was told no rudder initially and that nose down is the first reaction, although in practise the whole recovery sequence is obviously very quick.This was in the context of a ppl reval in a c152.
Apologies for hijack of the thread but seems relevant to the discussion!
Ta.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Rudder throughout, but ONLY to keep the aeroplane in balance (in other words no discernable sideforce and the ball in the middle), NOT to pick up a dropped wing.

G

[The500man]

Would you say rudder only once the stall has been recovered? I.e. nose forward, power on, roll wings level and neutralise yaw once recovered and climb established?If you think about it as soon as you apply a power change or a pitch change that effects airspeed you will need a rudder input. Personally I don't have a problem with using rudder to arrest a wing drop, but there is a fine line between that and picking a wing up, which you will see on Genghis' things you can do wrong list.

The idea of forward stick/ yoke and then rolling level is that you can't stall at 0g, and you can't bust your rolling g limit, but you can use full aileron to roll level as quickly as you can.

It's fine to say you won't use rudder when you are stalled, but for the sake of a PPL skills test, I don't think an examiner would want to see you delay adding full power, because that is part of the "standard" stall recovery. As soon as you add power you will need a rudder input.

[taxistaxing]

Thanks for clarifying chaps. OP, apologies for the misinformation.

[DB6]

One thing and one thing only causes an aircraft/aerofoil to stall: increasing the angle of attack beyond the critical.
Recovery is effected by reducing the angle of attack below the critical.
This is normally done using the elevators.
Adding power as you move the elevators down will help the wing unstall more quickly.
Once the aerofoil (wing) is unstalled you can use the flight controls normally - rolling wings level and raising the nose at this point will prevent further height loss.

Not much else is important.

[n5296s]

One other thing to help you gain confidence: you should find an instructor who's happy to demonstrate and then let you fly what's sometimes called a "falling leaf" stall (and sometimes isn't). Whatever it's called, the goal is to HOLD the aircraft fully stalled (yoke/stick fully back) for an extended time, GENTLY using the rudder to keep wings level. You can fly like this for as long as your altitude will let you - the descent rate is high (of course) but you are still flying. When you've had enough, yoke forward and fly out of it. The plane will bob up and down as the wings "try" to unstall themselves.

And definitely +1 for doing some basic spin training.

[Pittsextra]

go to Alan Cassidy and he'll sort you out. I'll refund you if not.

[mad_jock]

you should find an instructor who's happy to demonstrate and then let you fly what's sometimes called a "falling leaf" stall (and sometimes isn't).

That has been deemed bad practise and a training com has been put out to stop that crap.

[FullWings]

Lots of sensible suggestions.

Maybe a pre-aerobatic session with one of the many excellent qualified pilots we have in the UK? Once you've got used to recovering an aircraft from any attitude/airspeed, stalling won't seem a problem any more!

If you've developed a distaste or "fear" of stalling after a wing drop, it's possible that you're more sensitive to low or negative 'g' than the average pilot - it might be worth mentioning that to your instructor(s) and see what they say...

[piperboy84]

3. Questions,

1.
Is a "falling leaf" really a stalled condition, and if not what signifies advancing from a falling leaf stall to a full stall condition? and will a falling leaf always progress to a fully developed stall or will you just basically flutter all the way down if inputs are not changed.

2. Can you go directly from falling leaf to incipient spin?

3. "Back of the drag curve" do the flaps have to be deployed to reach the Back of the drag curve point?

Thanks

[mad_jock]

Yep its fully stalled with you fannying around with the rudder pedals trying to keep the wings level.

And yes its the perfect setup for a spin

Nope for each configuration there is a back of the drag curve. Its related to the angle of attack once you go over usually the best glide angle of attack your into the dirty side.

[Armchairflyer]

(Genghis): Rudder throughout, but ONLY to keep the aeroplane in balance (in other words no discernable sideforce and the ball in the middle), NOT to pick up a dropped wing.Why that? My understanding was that picking up the wing with rudder allows sooner application of aileron to roll level, but as always I might be mistaken.

[piperboy84]

MJ
Yep its fully stalled

So what determines if you will enter a "traditional" stall or "falling leaf" is it down to individual aircraft characteristics or is it control inputs regardless of what model of plane

[mad_jock]

Falling leaf is when you fanny about holding it in the stalled condition dicking about with the rudder to lift wings and other such ****e instead of recovering it.

[piperboy84]

Understood, thanks

[Genghis the Engineer]

3. Questions,

1.
Is a "falling leaf" really a stalled condition, and if not what signifies advancing from a falling leaf stall to a full stall condition? and will a falling leaf always progress to a fully developed stall or will you just basically flutter all the way down if inputs are not changed.

The airworthiness standards define the stall as full back stick or an uncommanded pitching and/or rolling motion.

The flight test community would define the stall usually as the high AoA point where the pilot has ceased to have full control in all three axes.

Either way, the falling leaf (which I agree with Jock, is a bloody silly thing to do, not least because it's not a manoeuvre tested during certification, and instructors should not be doing untested manoeuvres with their students) is stupid, but does meet the definition of a stalled condition.

2. Can you go directly from falling leaf to incipient spin?

Yes, typically through failure to maintain zero sideslip during the pitch-up part of this stupid and irresponsible maneouvre.

3. "Back of the drag curve" do the flaps have to be deployed to reach the Back of the drag curve point?

Thanks

Nope, the drag curve just changes shape - you can get on the back of the drag curve in any configuration so long as the aeroplane has enough pitch authority to let you - which almost invariably they will do.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Why that? My understanding was that picking up the wing with rudder allows sooner application of aileron to roll level, but as always I might be mistaken.

Applying rudder for any purpose other than ensuring (near) zero sideslip, increases drag, and increases the risk of spin. If anything it delays your ability to safely use aileron, not brings it quicker.

Unstalling the wing with elevator gives you an unstalled condition, and thus allows you to use aileron.

But there is seldom a good reason to hurry to lift the wing. It's the stalled condition that can give you problems; unstalled, a bank angle is just a bank angle. The 20-30 degrees which is the worst you should see in most aeroplanes after a stall has a trivial effect on stall speed, and you can still climb with it - so sort the bank angle out once the wing is unstalled, and ideally the aeroplane is level or climbing - but not earlier because you don't need to, and applying aileron at too high an AoA can also lead to a spin entry.

G

[Pace]

There has been some excellent advice from Pilot Dar CGB Genghis and others.
Most fear is fear of the unknown.
There are two ways to confront fear! slow immersion or extreme immersion so much so that it no longer scares you.
If I stall on my own and make a mistake I may spin. I may get into a situation I cannot handle and then i will die?
This is part of the reason I push for spin familiarity spiral dives and anything the aircraft throws at you RATHER THAN RECOVERY AT INCIPIENT!
My suggestion if this is a real problem is to do a few hours with a good aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine. Not to do aerobatics but so you can experience in safety what the aircraft can and will do if abused and how to get out of it to such an extent that fear of the unknown has gone.

pace

[piperboy84]

My suggestion if this is a real problem is to do a few hours with a good aerobatic instructor in an aerobatic machine. Not to do aerobatics but so you can experience in safety what the aircraft can and will do if abused and how to get out of it to such an extent that fear of the unknown has gone.

I had the fear issue and did exactly as you suggest here, went to an aerobatic school that specialised in spin recovery and teaching emergency manoeuvres training, it was great learning and a lot of fun. Upon completing the course i thought as soon as i get home I am going to practice stalls etc on my own in my own plane, Funny thing is i still have not tried it, i always seem to give myself excuses not to do it, i think the fear is still there.

[Pittsextra]

The original post talks about a fear of stalling and actually you can sympathise with the view given the current PPL (i.e no spin training) and some of the established views (some expressed here).

With the correct training there is nothing to fear from either a stalled condition or the spin. In fact aerobatics will introduce spins which require stopping to the a degree of accuracy to the 1/4 turn at the first stages - so all of this is under control.

The problem is that during the PPL such a big deal is made of the stall/spin that students are left uneducated - in fact most instructors have very little spin knowledge.

Sadly this extends to the military where this fear is re-enforced as they themselves have drilled holes in the ground with a variety of basic trainers.

The only solution (IMO) is do some training with a good aerobatics instructor. Your profile suggest you live in Swindon - so White Waltham is a perfect venue for you to kick off.

[Pittsextra]

Either way, the falling leaf (which I agree with Jock, is a bloody silly thing to do, not least because it's not a manoeuvre tested during certification, and instructors should not be doing untested manoeuvres with their students) is stupid,

??? What?? You could fly tomorrow with any number of good aerobatic instructors that could demonstrate this condition at will. Why is it "bloody silly'?

[Pace]

Piperboy

But did it make you feel more confident and relaxed having done that aerobatic experience than if you had not?
When I got my PPL I quite happily took friends off on trips into France with a much more experienced pilot with me.
On one occasion my friends turned up we were ready to go and a message came through from my friend who told me he had crashed the car and was unable to come.
I was all for cancelling and got really nervous until my friend assured me I didnt need him to hold my hand.
I was still nervous but bit the bullet loaded my other friends and we had a superb flight there and back which did my confidence the world of good.
In any situation where you know you have someone alongside who can sort things it is a fear in itself to loose that safeguard and go it alone.
That is an equal fear as stall recovery and the only way to deal with it is to go it alone.
FEEL THE FEAR AND DO IT ANYWAY!

Fear is about the unknown get taught recovery to incipient which is the modern trend and there is a lot of unknown there.
Go have fun with an aerobatic machine

Pace

[stiknruda]

FB1971

I learnt to fly in the RAF in the late 70's and then had a 10 year break before I obtained my civvy licence in 92 in a small African country. I aced groundschool & exams, amazed my instructor(ess) with my Nav and did really well in the circuit (hardly surprising really given my not revealed past!). She'd send me off solo for GH - just practice steep turns and stalls as you need to build the hours to qualify for the licence!

I was £ucking terrified of steep turns and stalls ON MY OWN- I don't know what caused this terror! I'd take off from her crop-dusting strip and head off to the nearest cloud and hide behind it, so she couldn't see me! After gentle wingovers and lots of Avgas being burnt, I'd head back and land. Oh it went well Lindsay, I'd say as I filled in the log. I passed my GFT as the examiner sat next to me and I knew he'd not let me kill him!

A few months later I flew with Dennis Spence and he suggested a couple of hours in his Pitts (The Smirnoff Team in Jo'burg). I flew with Rehan VT and VT (a former Silver Falcon and instructor (SAAF's Red Arrows)) explained stalling, spinning so clearly that the knowledge began to dispel the fear.

So my point is - if you are frightened, tell your instructor - if he/she can't help - change instructors!!

Stik

Blog (http://www.wildcataerobatics.com/blog)

Dennis features in a recent blog!

[Genghis the Engineer]

??? What?? You could fly tomorrow with any number of good aerobatic instructors that could demonstrate this condition at will. Why is it "bloody silly'?

Presumably those aerobatic instructors are using aeroplanes stressed and tested to carry out aerobatics.

NOT a PA28, C150, Thruster T600, Pegasus Quantum.... .... all of which to my certain knowledge were not tested or stressed for such a manoeuver, but all of which have been used by halfwitted instructors to demonstrate it.

G

[Pittsextra]

Thats fair but I'm not sure anyone had talked type before - some one simply suggested get your instructor to demo the falling leaf which then got a hail of "thats silly, dangerous.. etc"

Of course you should respect the limitations of the type your find yourself flying..

Although you did say "not least' so type limitations aside you are fine with the concept?

[Pace]

Ghengis

When spin instruction was stopped it was because more aircraft were lost training in spin instruction than for real!
Does that mean students should not be taught spin recovery? NO!
It means the right machine with the right instructor should be used.
Pilots should be familiar with all situations they can get into to be properly trained as pilots.
The author of this thread highlights the poor level of training offered in the PPL at present as well as the other thread regarding fear of forced landings.
Recovery to incipient is just not good enough!
Not just for the reason that they dont know the difference or recovery from a spiral dive or spin but are even scared of stalls for fear of what they may get into if the stall is abused.
We now have got to the stage that Cirrus pilots are told to wreck the aircraft by pulling the chute as they are so poorly trained or current in PFLs and handling that the chute is the best option.

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Am I fine with the concept of a falling leaf manoeuver in training?

In an aerobatic aeroplane, for a post-PPL advanced student learning about the corners of the envelope, absolutely fine. We did it on my ETPS course - from memory in a Tucano, and probably the Hawk.

For a PPL student, in a non-aerobatic aeroplane, who needs to build up behaviour patterns that will lead to immediate stall recovery with low height loss. Absolutely not.

Pace>> I am not against taking an aeroplane to a full stall, and believe that students should be taught to recognise the stall, and recovery from it promptly. I am against holding an aeroplane in the stall once it clearly has done - that is either aerobatics or test flying, and is not sensible or useful flight instruction.


G

[Pittsextra]

Genghis I'm not being funny but if anyone stalls a PA28 and doesn't realise it then frankly its a case of natural selection in action.

Getting a low time PPL to the point of stall safely isn't difficult, the recognition of which and corrective behaviour is down to the individual.

The OP suggested he was fearful of this state, which IMO is no surprise given the attitude around this subject. Its borderline "sea monsters live beyond 'ere"
and quite silly.

Whilst I absolutely agree with the attitude around type, its perhaps more indicative of the military than the nature of the type of flying that it was only until you are at the ETPS that you explore this element of the flight envelope?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did ETPS as a civilian back-seater, so I don't know first hand what the chaps in the front seat had seen of post-stall conditions prior. That said, given that in my syndicate the two pilots were a Herc driver and an F-18 driver, the odds are that it varied somewhat.

I mostly agree with you - any pilot should recognise the stall, and feel comfortable going there and coming back. I do not, for example, like the typical FAA approach of slow flight only recovering at the warner.

Okay, I'm not PPL student, nor have been for several decades, but I practice stalls most months, increasingly from the right hand seat, and regard them as just something you stay current at, whilst avoiding them if you didn't actually mean to. The "here live dragons" attitude in much (civilian / GA) flight training is indeed silly.

But I remain firmly of the opinion that the first priority in PPL training should and must be recognition and prompt recovery. Taking an aeroplane into the post stall regime should not go outside the cleared envelope, and should generally be regarded as an unnatural act - at that level of training. That doesn't preclude spin familiarisation, but again the emphasis should be, once in a spin, on prompt recovery.

Holding an aeroplane in any post-stall condition belongs in specialist advanced training, using aeroplanes properly certified for the purpose.

G

[funfly]

Doing stalls and unusual attitudes under a hood, now that really does concentrate the mind:E

[Big Pistons Forever]

I never had any of my students ever say they were " afraid " of stalling. However I ease them into the stall. They first will have had a good look at slow flight and the first stalls are simple power off straight ahead stalls which are pretty benign. What I want them to work on is the instinctive reaction to the stall with the wheel going forward, the power coming up and any yaw cancelled with the rudder.

When they get confident with that then we start with landing configuration and then move on to power on stalls and finally climbing turn stalls. But my message is consistent.

There is no time when you want the aircraft to stall so if it stalls you screwed up up. Yes you need to have to be able to recover from the stall but more important is to recognize the situations which are leading to a possible stall and do something to recover before the airplane stalls. Since most light aircraft inadvertent stalls start with the an undetected entry into slow flight, understanding what the aircraft feels like when it starts to get too slow is IMO one of the most important foundations skills. The best way to do this is IMO is to practice slow flight with the airspeed indicator covered up.

I think a big problem is that too many instructors scare students by either making the stall sound scarier then it is or do some accelerated aggressive stall on the first lesson.

I have a Canadian aerobatic instructor rating and strongly encourage PPL's to do an introductory aerobatic course to properly learn how to control the aircraft regardless of its attitude or orientation, but the purpose of the PPL should first and foremost be to teach the skills and knowledge to recognize and avoid the conditions that will likely lead to a loss of control.

[Pace]

BPF

Your format for teaching stalls is excellent as posted above as well as teaching to identify an impending stall and stopping it developing into a full stall.

Sadly and this is where I am concerned with teaching to recovery at incipient is the fact that in accident situations the aircraft goes beyond incipient.

The pilot is so distracted as in very poor vis turn to final that he fails to watch airspeed and increases bank to get the centreline.

In that situation the pilot may miss indications of an impending stall and find that the first he realises is the fact that the aircraft has fully stalled.

Hence while being taught to identify early indications is very important so is recovery from a full stall with minimal height loss.

The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)

It is when the pilot looses the plot that he looses the aircraft hence why beyond incipient is so important yet not given enough importance nowadays

Pace

[n5296s]

NOT a PA28, C150, Thruster T600, Pegasus Quantum.... .... all of which to my certain knowledge were not tested or stressed for such a manoeuver, but all of which have been used by halfwitted instructors to demonstrate it.
@Genghis... normally I have great respect for everything you say. But in this case I'm having a bit of difficulty. There is no way that this is an aerobatic manoeuvre, defined (by the FAA at least) as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight". The only clause which could possibly apply would be "abnormal attitude" (i.e. AoA beyond the critical point) but then that applies to any stall which would make all stalls aerobatic.

As for needing an aerobatic aircraft... this is a strictly 1G manoeuvre. If you get it badly wrong it becomes the very beginning of an incipient spin, but instantly corrected by releasing the stick/yoke. I'm NOT suggesting that pre-PPL pilots go out and do this on their own, but with an instructor who is comfortable with it (including recovery from a botched one). My 182 flies it like a pussy cat, you barely need to touch the pedals. Generally, it's a great demonstration that a stall is NOT instant death, that in fact a plane can be flown stably in a stall right down to flare altitude. (Apparently A330s fly it very nicely too, though that's probably not the best aircraft to try it in).

I guess this is the UK "not in front of the children" mentality. But anything which makes pilots more comfortable in case they find themselves in odd situations is a good idea.

[Big Pistons Forever]

BPF
The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)


I do not agree at all. A full spin is by definition at a minimum of more than 1 full turn as the first turn is part of the incipient spin phase. For any airplane the average reader of this forum is likely to fly at any point in the incipient spin phase applying forward stick and rudder against the yaw will result in an immediate recovery. To get to the point where a full anti spin procedure is required for a safe recovery, you have to let the aircraft go through at least one whole turn while holding into spin controls.

The solution to spin accidents is to develop the automatic reaction to a stall of stick forward, full power, rudder as required to stop the aircraft from yawing. If that automatic reaction is there then the aircraft can not spin.

The accident record is clear. Most stall spin accidents occur at a altitude that is so low successful recovery is unlikely. Stall recognition and avoidance is what is going to save lives, not teaching PPL's how to recover from a fully developed spin which is by definition an aerobatic manoever.

As for your comment on the PC 12 accident. Anybody flying a 4 Million dollar high performance aircraft should IMO opinion have undergone formal upset training. Again the focus of all the upset training I have seen is early recognition of the upset and the most effective methods of returning the aircraft to controlled flight. I have not seen one of these programs that lets the aircraft get into a fully developed spin before starting a recovery. In any case the ultimate cause of the PC 12 crash was not the inability to recover from a spin it was extremely poor decision making by the pilot when manoevering around convective weather.

I will end on a point I have often repeated. Want to learn about spins?? Don't do it in a spam can with a regular hours building instructor, take an introductory aerobatics course with a properly trained aerobatics instructor in an aerobatic airplane. Not only is it great fun but you will learn how to control the aircraft no matter what its orientation or attitude.

[abgd]

I'm at a loss to see how the regulators failing to enforce spins during training, or failing to ensure that instructors are up to muster can be described as 'nannying' - quite the opposite.

There's no law against finding yourself a good instructor and going out to do some spins now, any more than there was when you trained. It's up to the individual, and I recently organised some spin training for myself, albeit for fun rather than because I believed (or believe) it made me a safer pilot.

Effectively what you're describing is 'deregulation', not 'nannying'.

it's really a sad state of affairs when the average instructor is (apparently) so unskilled that you can't trust him

I agree that your average instructor is likely to be less current at spins these days, than your instructor was back in 19??, but the move against mandatory spin training came from US statistics showing that quite a lot of instructors weren't up to spinning safely either, even back in the day.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Formality, approved training organizatons, low hrs instructors and all that crap are counter productive IMHO... So in that sense I would agree that I think lower regulation can definitely produce better outcomes.

The General Aviation fatal accident rate in the 1940's and 1950's was 400% higher then it is now. Many of the accidents were low altitude stall spins. Things were a lot less regulated then too........

Sounds like you had a pretty good PPL course. However if the blueprint for a better PPL is everybody goes out and buys a 1940's taildragger and then finds an instructor who will work for 40$ a flight then flight instruction in the USA will pretty much instantly stop.

Sadly AFAIK I am the only instructor at my quite busy home airport that is qualified to teach a PPL on a tailwheel aircraft. A pretty common situation IMO. So we can pine for a totally impractical model of flight training or take today's reality of low hour instructors flying C 150/172/Pa28's and ask what is the art of the possible to make today's instructing better. My personal opinion is that there should be a real push to reinforce the development of foundation flying skills. I am talking about the boring unsexy things like holding a stable and correct attitude for the phase of flight, having the aircraft always properly trimmed, keeping the ball in the centre etc etc. For example before you should start worrying about recovering from a spin you should be able to do a 30 degree banked turn at 1.1 Vs.

Equally sadly I don't see that many students that are willing to pay for quality flight training or even want good training. The majority want the minimum that will get them through the flight test :ugh: Fortunately I have a day job flying a large T prop airliner and instruct part time as a hobby. This allows me to be very choosy on who I teach.

BTW I think the your instructor was a fool. I charge $50 an hour for all my time, ground and air, for the PPL and considerably more for advanced training and I should probably charge more.

[Genghis the Engineer]

@Genghis... normally I have great respect for everything you say. But in this case I'm having a bit of difficulty. There is no way that this is an aerobatic manoeuvre, defined (by the FAA at least) as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight". The only clause which could possibly apply would be "abnormal attitude" (i.e. AoA beyond the critical point) but then that applies to any stall which would make all stalls aerobatic.

As for needing an aerobatic aircraft... this is a strictly 1G manoeuvre. If you get it badly wrong it becomes the very beginning of an incipient spin, but instantly corrected by releasing the stick/yoke. I'm NOT suggesting that pre-PPL pilots go out and do this on their own, but with an instructor who is comfortable with it (including recovery from a botched one). My 182 flies it like a pussy cat, you barely need to touch the pedals. Generally, it's a great demonstration that a stall is NOT instant death, that in fact a plane can be flown stably in a stall right down to flare altitude. (Apparently A330s fly it very nicely too, though that's probably not the best aircraft to try it in).

I guess this is the UK "not in front of the children" mentality. But anything which makes pilots more comfortable in case they find themselves in odd situations is a good idea.

(1) I don't work for Cessna, but I have talked over the years to their Test Pilots, and run certification programmes on numerous light aeroplanes. I am quite clear that it is not normally tested - so the potential risks have almost certainly not been explored during flight test of your C182 or numerous similar non-aerobatic types.

(2) I do know my way around FAR-23, and doubt that Cessna have gone substantially outside that. FAR-23 does not include a requirement to stress any part of the aeroplane for this manoeuvre. It is possible that the horizontal stabiliser is seeing loads during the falling leaf that were never considered during certification and are outside the "limit case".

(3) The first instinct of any pilot reaching the stall should be to recover. Any training practice that instead of that becomes "ooh, that's interesting, let's see what happens if we stay here", is not creating the right attitude.

Those are my reasons. (2) is probably the reasons that stalling has I think been banned in the B737 - Boeing realised it was beyond the FAR-25 design cases, which are substantially the same as the ones in FAR-23.

G

[Pace]

As for your comment on the PC 12 accident. Anybody flying a 4 Million dollar high performance aircraft should IMO opinion have undergone formal upset training. Again the focus of all the upset training I have seen is early recognition of the upset and the most effective methods of returning the aircraft to controlled flight. I have not seen one of these programs that lets the aircraft get into a fully developed spin before starting a recovery. In any case the ultimate cause of the PC 12 crash was not the inability to recover from a spin it was extremely poor decision making by the pilot when manoevering around convective weather.

BPF

I think you are missing my point! The PC12 was recorded in a descent rate of 10000 fpm so the aircraft was in some sort of spiral dive or dive before it broke up BUT that could have started as a stall /spin and developed into a spiral dive with the pilot believing he was in a spin!

I came into flying from car racing 30 years ago. A car will understeer, oversteer and slide. You can teach a normal driver to avoid getting into such situations but people are not perfect one day the driver inadvertanly gets into and understeer puts more lock in to avoid running into the brick wall and bang!

Spins stalls spiral dives are in themselves irrelevant it is more about identification and feeling comfortable with what the aircraft may throw at you.

Which brings us back to the original poster who is scared of stalls because one went wrong and filled his head with fear of the unknown.

He probably thinks tha if he was on his own and stalled he may enter a situation he is not familiar with and untrained to handle.

I suggest he goes in an aerobatic aircraft with the correct instructor and learns what the PPL syllabus no longer contains.

BTW you cannot throw out statistics from the 1940s as verification of modern training standards because it is not!

Pace

[BackPacker]

I am quite clear that it is not normally tested - so the potential risks have almost certainly not been explored during flight test of your C182 or numerous similar non-aerobatic types.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer or anything, but I find myself in agreement with you here.

The certification standards are so that below Va you have to be able to put in full deflection of a single control, without the aircraft breaking up (plus a suitable safety margin). But there is no requirement whatsoever for the airframe to be strong enough to handle any rocking forward/backward or side/to/side of any control to the limit of its travel. Something a few Airbus pilots found out.

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf

In a "falling leaf" maneuver, it may well be that the vertical G forces are very limited - probably around 1G during the maneuver, and maybe 2.5G during the recovery. So I'm quite sure the wings won't come off. But at the same time you are using full left-to-right-and-back rudder to keep the aircraft level. Granted, you do so at Vs and not at Va, so the loads will be relatively light, but still there is no requirement whatsoever that the airframe is able to sustain this. So essentially you are a test pilot.

And it's not just the tail. Also consider what the fuel in your wing tanks of your PA28, and the wings themselves are experiencing when you start yawing left-right-left-right. Wings are immensely strong in the vertical, but not designed for any significant horizontal load.

In my opinion the falling leaf is a suitable maneuver for advanced pilot training, to help somebody get rid of "lazy feet" or to demonstrate edge-of-the-envelope flying. But it should be treated just like spin training: Suitable (aerobatic) aircraft, suitable instructor.

[jecuk]

In Australia in my PPL training we covered stalls including stalls with a wing drop but never fully developed spins. I don't find them at all scary however I certainly would at 500ft AGL. Having done some introductory aerobatics spins can be great fun but not in a PA-28!

[englishal]

Having a chilled out professional FI helps. When I did all manner of stalls for the CPL (turning, accellerated etc...) the FI was extremely experienced. His attitude was "well if we spin we shall recover, no big deal".

I did a bit of aero's a while back and the FI was a true professional. He'd find it funny when we were "falling with style" and start laughing before helping me recover. This instills confidence so you know that if you screw up, the worst that will happen is you'll have a laughing FI sat next to you...

Some of the more "fresh" FI's who are nervous and not really that competent do not fill me with confidence and there is no way in a million years I'd want to do any advanced stuff with them.

[peterh337]

I don't see any problems with stalling and stall training.

Got to be well above the ground ;) and got to keep the ball in the middle with the rudder.

Recovery from a stall should be instinctive, for any pilot: unloading the wings immediately, and apply power as required.

Can get "interesting" at ~FL200, when there is no more power to be had :E

[vee-tail-1]

There is useful article in the August LAA mag Light Aviation on How to Avoid Stalls & Spins. It starts with a pic of the remains of a Europa in which a father and daughter died. The aircraft stalled and spinned in a turn back manoeuvre following an EFATO.

[Pace]

I have no problem with avoidance training but being a realist realise that with the best will in the world accidents happen when the pilot is distracted or panicky.
We should train handling pilots not aircraft drivers!
Large commercial airlines are fitted with all manner of devices to prevent a stall light aircraft are not!
The much publicised airline crash was caused by pilots who did not identify what was happening with the aircraft and failed to recover
The Author of this thread having experienced a stall recovery which went wrong and scared him will not loose that fear by more recovery to incipient.
What can happen is now firmly in his mind. The only way to lay that ghost to rest is to let him see that he can handle the beyond

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Needless to say we did all kinds of things up to my limit, the aircraft and instructor had none that were applicable to our limited scope, and that included a lot of slow flight, a lot of stalls, a lot of irresponsible :rolleyes: falling leafs (give me a break), and a some junior spin entries and recoveries, intentional and unintentional. It was part of learning to fly, done by common sense with a good instructor without following some paint by numbers nanny system that assumes everybody involved is an unskilled idiot needing protection from themselves. IMHO that's what it takes to learn to fly.

This statement has a lot more value than people realize. It describes conditions where the student learns for themselves, rather than so much being "taught". Though an instructor's role is to teach, it is to every bit as much keep the student safe while they learn for them self.

I re state that I am not an instructor, and defer to the wisdom and experience of pilots like Big Pistons when it comes to proper instructing techniques. However, I opine that a "good" instructor, while assuring that the required curriculum is properly covered, will also allow the student to try anything they want within the limits of the aircraft, and push closer to those limits as the student's improving skill shows to be appropriate. The problem comes when the instructor is not comfortable being near those limits them self. The student looses. Big Pistons has previously asserted that instructors should have received aerobatic training - I certainly agree! While I was being "checked out" on a flying club 172, so I could there after go and test fly it, the instructor asked me is I would demonstrate a roll. No, I would not. During the brief discussion which followed, I realized he was not trying to set me up, he really just wanted to see a roll, and never had, and on his present career path never would. That's a problem. EVERY instructor should have the self confidence to recover from a roll in at least a safe way.

As for stalls, the certified plane can do it - all can. With proper loading, and stable air, a stall within 30 degrees of wings level will be benign in all cases. I think a part of the problem is "hanger talk" by pilots who have scared themselves in the past, now creating unfair reputations about things. I had heard many not so good things about Piper Navajo's flying characteristics over the years. What a shame that my eager ears listened. I had two to test fly, each with different external mods. I went for a half hour check out, having never flown one before. I expect longer, but he said I was fine. So an hour later there I am stalling with the left engine stopped and feathered, not only wings level, but 15 degrees bank in each direction. The Navajo was a delight, and not at all deserving the bad things I had heard. I entered these maneuvers with great caution and "build up", but reminded myself that the plane had demonstrated this before - it could do it. I had to do it - and I did....

I bet that 95% of the instructors I could ever have learned with would have forbade my even thinking about doing that, what a shame.... It just takes the right amount of training and caution, and the right conditions.

[paulp]

We now have got to the stage that Cirrus pilots are told to wreck the aircraft by pulling the chute as they are so poorly trained or current in PFLs and handling that the chute is the best option.

What a load of crap. What Cirrus pilots are taught varies a lot. The tendency, backed by real world data, has been to avoid using the BRS system based on the idea that a good pilot will save the plane. There is a movement to try to focus on saving the passengers rather than the plane and recognizing that, for a plane like a Cirrus, what appears to be a good spot to land might not be. Having had a friend die who took regular training with excellent instructors and just misjudged under pressure I wish he had pulled. Listening to a 9 year old girl talk about missing her dad was very tough.

As for Cirrus pilot training the CPPP is an excellent course. Cirrus has taken an aggressive position in providing new owner training as part of the purchase. It is not an extra but included with all purchases.

[Armchairflyer]

(Pace): I have no problem with avoidance training but being a realist realise that with the best will in the world accidents happen when the pilot is distracted or panicky.Agreed, but IMHO that applies to racers and their pilot equivalents, too. Might not be representative, but two scenes witnessed as a spectator spring to my mind: 1) accident at a sports car race behind a "blind" bend, following driver slams on the brakes and slides straight into one of the involved cars; 2) supermoto race, one driver tumbles, the following one locks up his frontwheel in panic and falls as well. In both cases, theoretically the accidents could have been avoided by "correct" maneuvers and in both cases, the drivers surely had excellent wheel'n pedal/bar'n lever skills, but that didn't help against a panic reaction.

Similarly, I believe that even for the best stick'n rudder ace with lots of controlled stall/spin/spiral dive recoveries under his belt chances are that an inadvertent and surprising stall/spin will result in a startled "WTF?!? :eek:" and a wrong "panic" reaction, at least initially. So while I agree that getting to experience spins etc. first-hand with an appropriate instructor in an appropriate aircraft at appropriate altitude is a valuable experience (and might take away the "awe of the unknown"; it did for me), I doubt it makes even partly immune against panic let alone distraction. IMHO, at least for the much-cited turn-to-finals accident and similar scenarios, judgment and situation awareness beat Stroker Ace reflexes and Top Gun aircraft handling skills any time.

[Pace]

What a load of crap


Paul aplogies it was an out of order comment re Cirrus pilots Made more to highlight the potential to use the chute for engine failure arguments put re currency at PFLs rather than a dig at Cirrus pilots being below par compared to their non chuted brothers!

Pace

[Big Pistons Forever]

.

BPF

I think you are missing my point! The PC12 was recorded in a descent rate of 10000 fpm so the aircraft was in some sort of spiral dive or dive before it broke up BUT that could have started as a stall /spin and developed into a spiral dive with the pilot believing he was in a spin!


Spins stalls spiral dives are in themselves irrelevant it is more about identification and feeling comfortable with what the aircraft may throw at you.



Part of the issue here is, I think one of definition. To be clear I am not against spin training. Quite the opposite. I think every licensed pilot should do an introductory aerobatic course and that it should be mandatory for instructors.
What I am against is spin training for the PPL. In particular where the plane is deliberately put into a spin and into spin controls are held until the spin is fully developed (ie more then 2 turns) and the spin recovery is "practiced". I think this is an utterly useless exercise at the PPL level.

The goal of PPL training should be to properly teach the foundation skills. Before you can fully understand the spin you have to be able to understand and control in slow flight and then in the approach to the stall and then into the stall itself.

These exercises are properly taught IMO with the emphasis on recognizing the signs of the impending stall and recovering from them before the airplane stalls. If the aircraft does stall then I think it is absolutely vital that the instinctive and automatic reaction of stick forward, full power, and rudder to control yaw be inculcated.

Doing this requires a goodly number of practice stalls and helps to build the confidence in the student that he/she can maintain control of the aircraft and quickly recover even if they miss the signs of the impending stall. An emphasis on controlling yaw during the stall and subsequent recovery will prevent the stall from developing into an incipient spin and then proceeding to a full spin.

Personally I don't think "spin" training would have made any difference to the outcome of the PC12 crash. What he needed was "upset" training which is specifically designed to train a pilot to quickly regain control when the plane suffers an upset, which undoubtedly happened here. By definition utilizing upset recovery procedures will cause the aircraft to recover before it enters a fully developed spin or spiral dive.

As an experienced PPL/CPL/ME/IFR and aerobatic instructor I guess I have strong opinions on this subject based on what I have seen and done over the last 25 years. We seem to be opposite sides of this argument and so maybe it is time to just agree to disagree. :)

[Pace]

As an experienced PPL/CPL/ME/IFR and aerobatic instructor I guess I have strong opinions on this subject based on what I have seen and done over the last 25 years. We seem to be opposite sides of this argument and so maybe it is time to just agree to disagree.

Big Pistons

I have always enjoyed your detailed and informative posts and no I do not think we are that far apart ;)

Pace

[JAKL]

Some very valid points raised so far and most educational, but I think you've all missed some important parts of the procedure...

My instructor, 33 years ago, told me the first and most important action upon stalling is to apply the parking brake.
Second is to depress the clutch before restarting, then mirror, signal, manoeuvre, before continuing.

My apologies chaps, couldn't resist, I'll just button my coat!

[foxmoth]

Similarly, I believe that even for the best stick'n rudder ace with lots of controlled stall/spin/spiral dive recoveries under his belt chances are that an inadvertent and surprising stall/spin will result in a startled "WTF?!? " and a wrong "panic" reaction, at least initially

Well I have entered stalls and had incipient spins unexpectedly with both myself and students handling, these have mainly been during aeros, and it was not WTF and panic reaction, but instinctive recovery, then WTF, this is what the training and experience gives you, plus the ability after the WTF to work out what happened and why.:hmm:

[lenhamlad]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the numerous posts following the question posed by Flyboy. As a recently qualified PPL with less than 100 hrs under my belt, I too worry constantly about stalling and the results thereafter. In some way, the various views, apart from the common advice of stick forward, wings level and full power, typefies the mystique of the way to handle stalls and the possible spin/spiral dive that may follow if not addressed. My instructor a 19,000 hr commercial pilot but also a very able aerobatic maestro, fully encouraged me to address the stall in its various guises but I think I shall take the advice of a number of posters and have an hour or two in an aerobatic aircraft with him to try and dispel some of the demons between my ears. I'll just have to put up with the uncomfortable and queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach!

[paulp]

OK here is a bit of a ramble on training.

It is a fact that safety improved in the US after spin training was eliminated. The question as to why remains. I suspect it was an increased focus on stall avoidance, stall recovery and spin avoidance. When people talk about spin training they act as if spins happen most often at 8000'. Most stalls happen at less than 1000' AGL. That means stall recovery. A spin is tool late in the process. I did spin training and probably need a refresher. I'm not opposed to it. In fact I think it is great stuff. Even more valuable is upset training. I do not, however, see lack of spin recovery skills as the cause of a major percentage of fatalities.

This brings up a related subject. If you believe GA is a good thing and that people who can only fly 50 hours a year should be allowed to do so then you need to structure your thoughts around how to keep those pilots as safe as possible. They will never match someone who trains 100 hours a year. As an example, the FAA made a good move allowing the substitution of a backup AI in place of a turn coordinator. How long does the ability to fly in real IMC using a turn coordinator last if not practiced? I doubt very long. A very seasoned pilot and good friend says it never really existed. He says a real world failure of a mechanical AI would have you on your side before the average pilot figured it out. The real world failure is very different from an instructor putting a Post-It over the AI. As an aside, one of the nice things about modern glass cockpits is the way an AI fails. Internal cross checking almost always catches it and removes the bad indication and replaces it with a big red X. Coming back to spins, I think stall avoidance and recovery is a more easily maintainable skill. A pilot can go out and practice a few stalls by himself but spins often aren't authorized in the owner’s aircraft.

Recognizing that we can never make flying 100% safe, we must look at where accidents really happen even if the data goes against our preconceptions. One I often hear aimed at Cirrus pilots is lack of basic flying skills. Those accidents are certainly out there. However, when I look at the data what stands out to me are two other categories 1) Critical decision making (CDM) and 2) A good understanding of how to use what is in the plane.

1) There are way too many fatalities by the age old VFR flight into IMC, poor choice of approach, show off flying, flight into know icing, etc. Perhaps instructors should spend a little more time explaining when to say no. How many instructors talk about approach selection based on the missed? A crash occurred because the plane couldn't meet the required climb rate of the GPS missed. The VOR approach (including missed) was flyable in the plane.

2) I see a lot of discussion of too much autopilot use leading to deteriorating skills. However, when I look at fatal accidents I see something else. I see pilots who could have gotten out of trouble just by engaging the AP and using it to safely fly to clear air. AP failures in IMC are actually very rare in modern aircraft. Isn't it sad that pilots get into IMC unexpectedly and rather than engaging the AP and using the heading bug to find clear air they hand fly until they eventually get disoriented and crash. In a Cirrus too few pilots understand BRS as an option. What stands out is not the number of useless chute pulls (very few) but rather the number of preventable deaths because the BRS system wasn't used.

Want to help your instrument students? Teach them how to get out of messed up avionics. A new instrument pilot died due to confusing instructions from ATC combined with an edit to a Garmin 430 flight plan that sent him into a mountain. When I used to fly behind a 430 I spent a lot of time figuring out why I sometimes got surprising results.

Read the report on NASA reports for TAA aircraft. It is shocking. How about an airspace violation because the pilot didn't know how to clear a warning message off of the GPS display! Then I remembered that during my PPL I was never once allowed or taught how to use either the AP or the GPS. In modern aircraft you need to UNDERSTAND the systems.

A Piper Cub, an SR22 and a 747 are all very different and require different training. We are past the age where every aircraft panel looks the same.

OK, end of rant.

[Armchairflyer]

(Acf):Similarly, I believe that even for the best stick'n rudder ace with lots of controlled stall/spin/spiral dive recoveries under his belt chances are that an inadvertent and surprising stall/spin will result in a startled "WTF?!? " and a wrong "panic" reaction, at least initially.(foxmoth):Well I have entered stalls and had incipient spins unexpectedly with both myself and students handling, these have mainly been during aeros, and it was not WTF and panic reaction, but instinctive recovery, then WTF, this is what the training and experience gives you, plus the ability after the WTF to work out what happened and why.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gifGranted, but a momentary upset/stall/spin during aerobatics at sufficient altitude, with you being completely geared up in aerobatic/UA mode and "in the loop" (in addition to your ample training and experience) IMHO hardly compares to a supposedly uneventful maneuver at pattern altitude with attention distracted from properly handling the plane and watching attitude and airspeed (for whatever reason) when suddenly the houses start rushing at you, not only turning wildly but looking really big from the outset (and that's the kind of :eek:-WTF I was referring to).

[flyinkiwi]

I think we need to clarify here that recovering from a stall and recovering from a spin are two distinct procedures that are not necessarily identical. The OP is referring to stalling, so we should be discussing stall recovery techniques so that student pilots reading this are not confused.

My 2c for the OP, I was something of a nervous student. Even after 30 hours I still had to regularly remind myself not to grip the controls so hard because it was significantly affecting my concentration levels because I was fatiguing far more rapidly than I should have been. When I did basic stalling the instructor demonstrated a hands off recovery from a basic stall. When trimmed properly training aircraft will fly themselves out of a stalled condition if you take your hands and feet off the controls, it is all a matter of how much altitude you have up your sleeve. When I came to do wing drop stalls I was sick with fear. I guess my instructor knew it but I did what in hindsight was the right thing to do and vocalized my feelings as I opened the throttle for takeoff. He smiled and nodded and said he would ease me into things. After 45 minutes not only was I flying the entry and recovery unaided, I was reluctant to return to the airport because I was having so much fun. The moral of this story is, if you are concerned with or have doubts about a lesson, for Pete's sake tell your instructor. If they are worth their salt they will adjust the lesson to help placate your nerves, and you never know, you might end up having a bit of fun along the way. That lesson for me rates as one of the highlights of my flight training.

[Pace]

Paul

Accidents from spins in the USA reduced not because of some magic awareness of stall avoidance but because spins were removed from
The syllabus.
Really spins in themselves are not the issue here training handling pilots is!
The author of the thread is scared of stalls because one stall did not go to plan and gave him a taste of what could happen!
Having had that taste the poor guy was peering into the unknown and felt unable or knowledgable to recover!
A stall can lead to a spin or a spiral dive!
The spin is not the big bad ogre many make out ! Pre war it was used as a controlled way to make a cloud break and recover when visual!
But this is not what the argument is about!
The tendency in training is to go more and more towards avoidance meaning that pilots so trained are not suitably trained beyond avoidance and that is fine as long as a situation does not occur where avoidance does not work!
You claim that spins and spirals only happen low level.
I fact they occur in Imc or around severe turbulence!
But that again is not the point.
I can be trained as a racing driver to understand the right lines correct braking , power application , understeer, oversteer,slides!
How would I be as a racing driver if I had never experienced these things!
How would I be as an ordinary driver on the day my avoidance failed and I understeered straight into a brick wall because I knew no better?

Pace

[foxmoth]

granted, but a momentary upset/stall/spin during aerobatics at sufficient altitude, with you being completely geared up in aerobatic/UA mode and "in the loop" (in addition to your ample training and experience) IMHO hardly compares to a supposedly uneventful maneuver at pattern altitude with attention distracted from properly handling the plane and watching attitude and airspeed (for whatever reason) when suddenly the houses start rushing at you, not only turning wildly but looking really big from the outset (and that's the kind of -WTF I was referring to).

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively:bored:

[Pace]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!
If those pilots got into a full bloodied stall or worse a spin the ones trained to incipient would not have a clue what to do! Recovering instinctively come from experience not lack of it !

Pace

[Armchairflyer]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place (...)Sure, but that would be about recognition and avoidance anyway, wouldn't it?
(...), but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively.Agreed as well, but the question remains if there is enough distance to the rising ground left.

My point is not about stall/spin training being useless, just that an emphasis on awareness, recognition, avoidance and immediate recovery at the incipient stage instead of getting (too?) familiar with fully developed stalls/spins yields considerably bigger safety gains in the PPL curriculum, certainly as far as the prevailing "maneuvring flight" accidents at low altitude are concerned.

[Pilot DAR]

Did this pilot recognize that the aircraft was stalled? Did he avoid a stall? (the nose did not drop)

Bellanca.Crash - YouTube

Stall and spin avoidance training might have more traction with me, if it is thoroughly taught including the differing characteristics of different aircraft, the effects of weight and C of G, and then the discipline to "avoid" the stall when severely distracted by another event. During my spin testing of a Grand Caravan, I was very surprised by the great difference in handling in this realm, resulting from nothing more than C of G change (within limits).

If the student is to be declared stall "avoidance" trained, these variables have to have been well covered in the training. Is the 172 being ballasted to gross weight, aft C of G for stall avoidance training? Would it be easier to just teach through recovery, and then all the differing conditions have been covered?

[FullWings]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively
Well said.

It is about instinctive, possibly even reflexive actions. As soon as the airframe stops responding in the normal manner to control inputs, the initial, almost unconscious reaction must be to reduce the angle of attack. Diagnosis of the actual event can follow later.

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!
I'd agree with the second part, not always with the first. Training people in "here's a stalled aircraft, now recover it", "show me some stalls and recoveries" or "talk me through the symptoms of the stall and recovery" is missing the point - it's too late by then. Better to tell someone to fly just above the stall while manoeuvring the aircraft - you'll soon see whether they have the required skills/instincts or not. I'd thought the whole idea was to train someone NOT to depart from controlled flight, not to demonstrate how good they are at losing it, law of primacy and all that?

[foxmoth]

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!
If those pilots got into a full bloodied stall or worse a spin the ones trained to incipient would not have a clue what to do! Recovering instinctively come from experience not lack of it !


Pace, I can see you disagree with me, but not sure what you are disagreeing with??? I am not saying you JUST train to incipient (though recovery at this stage should be the emphasis) but that someone who is fully conversant and current with ALL stalling phases will be unlikely to reach a full stall because they will have reacted and recovered before this, and for those that say it will be useless at circuit height, a recovery done promptly at this stage will take about 50' - even fully developed (stall, not spin) you should only be looking at 100-200'.

[paulp]

Pace

I mentioned that I have had spin training and found it useful. I don't disagree with the training being a good thing. Probably the most useful thing to learn from it is that planes only know relative wind and the tug of gravity. Hence they fly upside down and in many other attitudes so don't freak and just fly. However, a base to final turn with an uncoordinated stall is an all too common scenario and that depends on a focus on coordinated flight and IMMEDIATE reaction to a stall. I am reacting to the impression I get reading your posts that spin training will fix the GA accident rate. I believe that the biggest improvement potential is in the area of critical decision making.

As for the person posting being nervous, spin training and unusual attitude training would be useful so that he would be comfortable and just fly the plane when unexpected things happen.

[KMSS]

Some years ago as a gliding instructor our training syllabus always included what we called incipient spins -- as someone has already said above, that basically meant recovery in the first 1/4 turn of a developing spin. If you fly gliders long enough you'll experience "being stalled and spun" by gusts because thermaling is done a few knots above stall, in a steep bank, with somewhat crossed controls (in a steep bank with long wings, rudder in direction of turn and ailerons a bit against the bank are what create coordinated flight). Gusty conditions would eventually do the trick, and sometimes it was close to the ground in ridge soaring situations.

What hasn't been mentioned in much detail is that pilots vary widely in their ability to sense and respond correctly in this situation. I found that pilots who were trained by primarily visual cues and numbers often didn't have the feel for what to do. Under stress we revert to trained tactile responses, and if they had none, well that's a problem. That required some retraining in the basics of control feel. Then there's the issue of being able to respond while experiencing the physiological sense of falling or being out-of-control as the aircraft began to yaw and the nose dropped. For that, experiencing it more than once was the only way. Maybe the more scared a pilot is, the more they need to practice it with the right instructor and equipment until their trained response on the controls is more reliable than their panic.

[Pace]

Paul

I am obviously NOT getting my message across in a clear way so one last try;)
Spinning in an isolated fashion is irrelevant.
If you have flown spins you will know that some end up in a spiral dive which is a very different situation.
While I fully appreciate the importance of never going there and the importance of identifying an aircraft close to a stall and stopping that developing I also realize that that target is wishful thinking, nice concept to hold but far from reality in real aircraft accidents.
Accidents happen when pilots are out of their own limits and usually a succession of incorrect decisions.
They become overloaded and I have seen pilots in such a state who could not even tell you their own name.
Those pilots could be in a situation where they miss the incipient stall because they are so preoccupied elsewhere and either find themselves in a full stall or worse.
I am an ex racer and find the comparison very close of a racing driver and an ordinary driver.
One is taught to handle a car and avoid situations where they get into a skid.
The racing driver is comfortable with the car out of shape at high speed understands oversteer understeer, power management, slides, braking points and weight distribution.
The poor ordinary driver gets into a situation where he has lost control and is ill equipt to do anything about it.
The racing driver is likely to drive faster but like for like is more likely to recover the situation.
So yes I am all for avoidance training but add the safeguard of feeling confident with the aircraft whatever it throws at you.
That does not mean the handling pilot will get away with it but he is more likely to than the untrained pilot.
We talk of instinctive reactions? Those are reactions which we have because they have ingrained into us through repeated experience.
The pilot trained to avoid may have instinctive reactions to avoid but go beyond that and he is in no mans land.
Spins in themselves are just one aspect of what can happen if a stall is not handled correctly, spiral dives another. IMO a pilot will benefit a lot from an aerobatic course with a good instructor where out of the box handling can be experienced and understood in safety.

Pace

[paulp]

Pace - Please read my last post one more time. What do you disagree with? I don't think it disagrees with a lot you have said. Are you saying poor CDM isn't an issue? Are you saying pilots are adequately trained and not making bad decisions such as VFR into IMC and that better stick and rudder skills will fix all? I am saying a whole spectrum of stick and rudder skills from uncoordinated base to final turns to, yes, flying the plane in an unusual attitude (including spin entry) is an issue. I just see the problem as broader and you give the me impression you think there is one and only one issue.

[michaelw961]

When I started flying I hated stalling excercises, they used to really scare me. I managed to get through my flight test and then avoided stalling at all costs. I then took a long break from flying (7 years) and when I began flying again really enjoyed the stalling excercises. I still had respect for stalling but if no longer frightened me. I'm unsure what the reason is. I think the impotant thing to realise is when practising your a long way from the ground, the conditions are under control and the outcome is expected. Last time I stalled a C152 it wouldn't drop a wing even though we tried hard (full flap, 2000 rpm,, rudder, yoke hard back at 60 knots)

[Armchairflyer]

(Pace): The racing driver is likely to drive faster but like for like is more likely to recover the situation.
So yes I am all for avoidance training but add the safeguard of feeling confident with the aircraft whatever it throws at you.
That does not mean the handling pilot will get away with it but he is more likely to than the untrained pilot.The rather scarce and older findings I could find on the subject of racing drivers and accidents rather support the view that with (because of?) their superior wheel'n pedal skills, race drivers (or drivers trained in advanced car handling) tend to stretch their limits to an extent that rather results in a safety penalty [1]. One more recent study on the subject comes to the conclusion that a "focus on teaching drivers about self assessment and anticipation of risk, as opposed to teaching drivers how to master driving at the limits of tire adhesion" is considerably more promising concerning safety outcomes [2].

IMHO same goes for flying; the problem is arguably not so much what the aircraft may "throw at you" by itself, but rather what the pilot makes or lets the aircraft throw at him/her, and while the handling pilot is probably indeed more likely to get away with an identical "it" compared to an untrained pilot, taking care to stay out of trouble from the outset seems to be the better choice for accident prevention.

[1] e.g., A.F. Williams, B.F. O'Neill (1974), On-the-road driving records of licensed race drivers, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 3(4), p. 263–270.
[2] S. Washington, R.J. Cole, S. B. Herbel (2011), European advanced driver training programs: Reasons for optimism, IATTS Research, 34, p. 72-79

[Pace]

ArmchairPilot

I have no doubts that racing drivers or ex one ! will by their nature be faster on the roads than the average driver.
Probably the same as Red Bull flyers will be a different breed than the normal pilot.
They will probably be risk takers and as such have accidents pushing limits which the normal pilot might not take.
I agree with you on that!
But take the very tragic PC12 accident? Would the Red Bull pilot have recovered the situation?
I am pretty sure the answer would be yes.
Avoidance is very commendable but sometimes avoidance fails and hence the accident.
I still feel a course of 5 hrs in an aerobatic aircraft flying advanced out of the box techniques will add greatly to the understanding and confidence of a normal pilot :E Money well spent!

Pace

[Armchairflyer]

I still feel a course of 5 hrs in an aerobatic aircraft flying advanced out of the box techniques will add greatly to the understanding and confidence of a normal pilot.Basically no disagreement here :). Not sure though (at least from a safety standpoint) to which extent the emphasis should indeed be on flying advanced out of the box maneuvers as opposed to learning how to smoothly recover a.s.a.p. from (developed, not incipient ;)) upsets and unusual attitudes without panicking and without overstressing even a non-aerobatic aircraft (cf. the PC 12 accident).

[mad_jock]

yes yes its all great what would develope a PPL into a complete pilot.

Unfortunately after flying SEPs for a 1000 hours i wasn't one of them. Althought pretty tidy at PFL's and steep turns etc.

There is only so much you can teach the buggers properly in 45 hours.

And as its quite a common issue they can't even trim properly and hold an attitude I reckon we should crack that first.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And as its quite a common issue they can't even trim properly and hold an attitude I reckon we should crack that first.
I think I got that sorted during the IMCr course! (When asked why I wanted to do it my answer was along the lines of wanting to learn to fly more accurately.)

[Big Pistons Forever]

There is only so much you can teach the buggers properly in 45 hours.

And as its quite a common issue they can't even trim properly and hold an attitude I reckon we should crack that first.

I could not agree more, and in words Pace will understand. You have to learn to steer a proper line before you can understand how to deal with understeer, oversteer, slides and braking points. ;)

[Pace]

I could not agree more, and in words Pace will understand. You have to learn to steer a proper line before you can understand how to deal with understeer, oversteer, slides and braking points.

BPF

So when they are driving around following their proper lines on their own fingers crossed they do not get into any of the above!

MJ problem is you let the buggers loose on their own :E

Pace

[mad_jock]

yep we do because there is only so far you can take them with out letting them loose.

In a perfect world we would get them back after 50 hours and do another 10 when they actually had some experence to understand the finer points you are trying to get across,but it doesn't work like that.

If you have a look at the way gliding training is done and progress through the tickets both pilot wise and instructor wise its a hellva lot more sensible.

[Armchairflyer]

(...)You have to learn to steer a proper line before you can understand how to deal with understeer, oversteer, slides and braking points.So when they are driving around following their proper lines on their own fingers crossed they do not get into any of the above!Apart from some young would-be racers :E it seems to me that the majority quite well succeed in not getting into any of the above. AFAIK lack of car handling skills is at best a marginal factor WRT road accidents compared to, e.g., lack of judgement and/or awareness.

[Pace]

ArmChairFlyer

What has happened to the RayBan sporting,leather jacketed pilots of old? :E:

This lot will all be flying around in Pink aeroplanes soon with dummies stuck in their mouths ??

Only joking

Pace

[mad_jock]

The thing is some just don't get the whole idea behind operating any bit of machinery be it car,plane or boat or even a generator.

Yes they can demonstrate sufficent skills to be able to be allowed loose with said items. But in reallity it doesn't matter how much training you give them they will never be at one with said equipment. Every control input there will require a thought to be be processed reflected on if thats the right thing to do then actioned.

[Pilot DAR]

at one with said equipment

Exactly.

I have observed over my decades of operating all manner of machine, that there are four major phases of the operation of a machine:

Machine is not operating/being operated = very safe

Machine operating normally, with a wide margin of safety all the way around = safe for trained person to operate.

Machine operating in the range beginning at "abnormal" but not exceeding any design limitations (could be headed that way though) = the "trained" person might be outside their comfort zone, and headed for trouble, but the person who is "at one" with the machine might still be in a safe operating range, because their training and "oneness" is compensating for the otherwise abnormal conditions.

Machine operating beyond limitations, or in imminent peril = only former race drivers have a hope of recovery.

Every pilot qualified on a class of aircraft should be very comfortable in any part of the second phase, and able to just touch into the third phase with self assuredness. If, however, they recognize that being well into the third phase causes real fear, or reduced performance, they must either self limit to always stay out of those types of operations, or seek lots more training. A quick bit of refresher training is not going to do it.

a 45 hour PPL course does not come near providing enough opportunity to expose a student to everything they should know to be safe. Those students who rush to their first solo, and try to do everything in the minimums, are just cheating themselves, and increasing the risk to their passengers. Stalls are just one of the many types of operations which should be trained well, and practiced regularly. It's not so much the need for the pilot to be able to stall and recover well, but much more the ability of the pilot to be able to operate in phase three with enough confidence that they can get safely back out, without letting things get worse, or freezing with fear. They need to be at one with the equipment....