Stall Recovery

[Coconut84]

Hi Everybody, I've looked in CAR & CAAP and I've established the fact that CASA does not have any published minimas for stall recovery. Although the CAAP does touch on Aerobatic manoeuvres to be recovered above 3000', a basic stall isn't considered an aerobatic manoeuvre. Can anybody help me out in answering; why every flying college in Australia have adopted this arbitrary 3000' figure in which to recover from a stall. Is it written in something somewhere?:ugh:

[Andy_P]

Where I fly, our training area ceiling is 3500, which we tend to keep away from because its a pretty busy airspace above (final approach for commercial flights). Our stall training is done at 3000 and our airwork call states not below 2000. Of course in practice, the instructors expect you to recover in about 200 tops, preferably 100.

The only other rule I am aware of is stall training cannot be done over populated areas (not sure about the CAR), so provided you have recovered by 500 (not that I would like to try it that low) and are straight and level I guess that would be the minimum?

[djpil]

Reg 155 has this statement:
************ (2) * For the purposes of subregulation*(1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
So, my opinion is therefore that such stalls do not need to be performed only in day VFR in an aerobatic aeroplane.
I don't see a reason to have subregulation (2) at all unless somewhere there is a rule stating that such stalls are aerobatics - perhaps there was and it no longer exists.
Subregulation (2) excludes sub (1) but not sub (3) indicating that subregulation (3) applies to those stalls i.e. a minimum height of 3,000 ft.

Who knows!

[nick14]

Depends on the aircraft.

Don't try it with a tommy below 4000. Most others are grand.

[+TSRA]

Hi coconut84,

I was told in my early flying days, when doing my flight instructor rating, that that the reason for the 3,000 foot floor was due to the possibility of an inadvertent spin entry. Anything lower than 3,000 feet would not necessarily allow the pilot(s) to recover. Incidentally, it's not only an Australian thing...I've seen it in New Zealand, Canada and the United States. I've also seen 5,000 feet (AGL) as the floor, so I guess it depends who was taught what.

Now, I have had a couple times sitting beside a student where stall practice ended up turning into the spin lesson. I can count the number of times on one hand, but it does happen, so I guess having a higher limit makes sense.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Any instructor who can't prevent the aircraft from entering a spin if the student screws up should not be in the airplane. When I teach the instructor rating recovering from botched stalls is part of the training.

[G-F0RC3]

Don't try it with a tommy below 4000.

Really? I've heard this from a different source too. He referred to it as a Traumahawk, although had to confess that he'd never personally flown it. However, I've flown Tomahawks before and found them to be a fine little aircraft that easily recover from stalls. I've never had a spin in one, but I know you can't recover from it without the correct control manipulations. But does that warrant a bad reputation? :confused:

[dobbin1]

since 2012, there is an entry in the POH for tomahawks that spins must only be made at an altitude that enables recovery by 4,000 ft agl.

[nick14]

It takes a lot of height to get one out of a spin although they are lovely aircraft. As always know your aircraft and personal limitations rather than just accepting what some other bloke says.

Read the POH.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did a formal evaluation of stalling and recoveries (both correctly and incorrectly flown) in a Tomahawk not long ago. Looking at my notes I got the following


Landing flaps, 30 degrees bank, approach power
====================================

CAA recovery technique (simultaneous pitch and power):90ft height loss, fully controllable.

FAA recovery technique (pitch, then power once wing unstalled): 200ft height loss, rolled 45 degrees left at point of stall, but fully recoverable once stick moved forward.

Stick forward, 2 second delay then full power: 240ft height loss, fully controllable

Full power, 2 second delay, stick forward. Dropped wing to about 90 degrees, did not pursue the manoeuvre further.

Flaps up, idle
==========
CAA Recovery - 180 ft height loss, fully controllable

FAA recovery - 250 ft height loss, fully controllable

Power delayed - 190ft height loss, fully controllable

Power first - Incipient spin with minimal warning.


An experienced pilot on type can certainly improve upon all of these numbers, but it was all being done very precisely to a test schedule. [For the record, at a mid-fwd CG condition, and about 87% of MTOW.]


I'd summarise all of this by saying that there's nothing particularly wrong with the Tomahawk, but it's less tolerant of mishandling than many types.

I'm sorry to say that I've never spun a Tommie - partly because I've never had occasion to, and partly because I have a moral objection to spinning anything that I can't have a parachute and jettisonable door.

G

[+TSRA]

I wholeheartedly agree BPF. That is more than enough altitude for the instructor to recover, especially considering they should be expecting it to happen.

However, I guess I could have added that the instructor is not always there. At some point, the student does have to go practice solo stalls. In that case, something under 3,000 feet may not be enough altitude for the average PPL candidate to recover from an inadvertent spin entry...at least, during the early stages.

Now...a commercial or flight instructor candidate, on the other hand, is a different story. I never stayed instructing long enough to teach the instructor rating, but I'm glad to see that spin entry is still taught...I heard a nasty rumour TC had taken it out of the syllabus for the PPL and was demonstration only for the CPL...:bored:

[Genghis the Engineer]

UK only has spin entry for the instructor course - not for either PPL or CPL.

G

[foxmoth]

Don't try it with a tommy below 4000

Yet another person spreading rubbish about the Pa38! :rolleyes:
Not my favourite aircraft but it really does not have some of the problems some try to tar it with. I would say MOST average low hour PPLs should not be practicing stalling below 3,000' solo in any aircraft, but anyone with a decent amount of experience who is up to speed with stall recoveries should not have a problem.:bored:

[ifitaintboeing]

UK only has spin entry for the instructor course

...and recovery.

ifitaint...

[fireflybob]

Not got it to hand but I believe the amendment to the PA38 Flight Manual states that stalls should be entered at an altitude to recover by 4,000 AGL. (Spins would require a higher entry height depending on number of turns etc).

Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs but assuming QNH set one would also have to be aware of terrain elevation. EG terrain 400 ft amsl, height loss 300 ft would mean a minimum entry altitude of 4,700 ft QNH.

NB Am not saying I personally agree with the amendment which I see more as a legal evaluation after a spinning accident in the UK a little while ago.

[dobbin1]

Sorry, I meant stalls, not spins on my earlier post.

[nick14]

I don't think it's rubbish, I'm not saying the aircraft is bad by any means I am merely pointing out the limitations in the POH and that the aircraft has some particular handling characteristics that MUST be understood prior to attempting these manoeuvres.

Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.

[Genghis the Engineer]

...and recovery.

ifitaint...

Fair point, well made.

I think it *should* be in the CPL syllabus, and properly explained and practiced, not just the quick "show and tell" that was certainly in my instructor course - although I still agree with it being removed from the PPL syllabus. Whilst people do for understandable reasons get worked up on the subject, historical data does support the assertion that more people were killed by practicing it, than saved by knowing it.

But that is perhaps a debate for a different thread.

G

[foxmoth]

I don't think it's rubbish, I'm not saying the aircraft is bad by any means I am merely pointing out the limitations in the POH and that the aircraft has some particular handling characteristics that MUST be understood prior to attempting these manoeuvres.

Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.

Certainly came over as if it was something horrific, I agree that you should respect the POH, but really the Pa38 stall is not that much of a problem and these sort of posts get many students and PPLs anxious.

[nick14]

Perhaps I didn't word it very well. I blame earlies.

I like the aircraft, and I certainly don't believe that it deserves the nickname it has received however it does have some unusual tendencies for a training aircraft and history has shown that pilots and instructors have got it wrong.

Get into a fully developed spin without sufficient height and it's curtains, as with all aircraft.

[foxmoth]

Get into a fully developed spin without sufficient height and it's curtains, as with all aircraft

Duh - Yeah:ugh:

I would actually disagree with unusual tendencies for a training aircraft, maybe nowadays pilots have lost touch with aircraft that DO stall, but never had a problem myself with the Pa38 in this respect. I think it has been found that most problems with Stalling/Spinning on Most aircraft are more down to incorrect techniques rather than an actual problem with the aircraft!

[Whopity]

why every flying college in Australia have adopted this arbitrary 3000' figure in which to recover from a stall. Is it written in something somewhere? Its origin is most probably Military and would be in one of their training regulations. There would be a mandatory abandonment altitude and any stalling/spinning would have to be commenced so that recovery could be effected before the abandonment altitude, with a suitable safety margin.

Thank goodness these things are still left to the industry to deceide and not regulated by some petty bureaucrat.

[BigEndBob]

I had a spate of PPL candidates quite happy to start stalls at 2-2500 feet.
Probably because the weather has been so bad that the instructor was allowing the student to do them at a lower altitude, but not pointing out this would not be permitted in the flight test.

Any aircraft can bite, no matter how familier.

I explain to them what happens if they take their new shiny wonder machine and start stalling at low altitude.

I have come across many kit builders who have asked me to fly with them that whince when i say shall we try a stall. Stall recovery practised at safe altitude should be as familier as landing.

Modern aircraft like modern cars should not require some special technique to recover. I divorced myself from the tomy when one didn't recover from a spin from 4000 until 1500 feet one day. Instructors can learn and remember special techniques, students won't.