What might be impressive and alot to you isn't really. Although to be honest if your that high you might as well do an orbit instead. There is then more chance of you making a pigs ear of adjusting for wind while your landing point is out of view.
If you don't pitch to the critical angle of attack you cant stall.
Functioning engine or not if your high enough to require a side slip to get in you could get away with an orbit.
The only issue with doing an orbit is that you loose sight of your aiming point. For most instructors or your flying something such as the PA38 where you can see pretty well out the back you should be able to get back to your final track with out having to side slip. Either that or add mileage in by Sing.
Sidesliping comes into its own though if your only option is in over the top of some trees.
Go find an auld bugger instructor for your next hour with an instructor and get them to show you how to manage height/energy etc. There are many ways to skin a cat of which one of them is a slideslip.
Is it possible we are comparing apples to oranges? if you are still qualified as a gliding instructor, I would be delighted to fly with you. After 1800 hours in gliding, (which involved a lot of instructing, and probably at least 4,000 takeoffs and landings ) and another 1,200 in power, mostly tugging - (so probably another 3,000 takeoffs and landings) due to a very slight impairment in peripheral vision, they now require me to carry a qualified safety pilot! Which I must accept, because I am not as young as I used to be, and so tend to forget things, like carb heat, or flaps....what did I come in here for?
But then your critical angle of attack is different; the statement by MJ still holds true although if he omitted the 'don't pitch to' the pedantic among us wouldn't have had anything to leap on.
I know what he meant as I would guess everyone else did.
Of course I have which is why I know that the critical angle of attack reduces with the change of the wing profile due to the build up of ice. Doesn't happen alot in PPL training or for that matter in VFR flight. Shall we also include bird strikes as well and FOD or maybe even an seagull crapping on the wing, structral failure in flight?
But as we are talking about GA light aircraft for PPL's which not many of which are cleared for flying in icing conditions your point is rather miss leading and only confuses the issue for 95% of the readers. The other 5% are either instructors or IFR pilots who know the additional qualifications to that statement. So the only reason for your post is not to add any meaning full content to the majority its just to muddy the water and make yourself out as knowledgable.
And yes to patronising walter mittys, I will tell it like it is.
If you don't pitch to the critical angle of attack you cant stall.
That is incorrect-the critical angle of attack can be reached without any pitch change by the pilot. Look at the Papa India accident at Staines or the BMI accident to the ATP.
The critical angle of the airfoil can be reached by a configuration change(PI) or a build up in ice (BMI).
Angle of Attack is also goverened by RAF and again that can change to bring the a/c to the critical angle without any pitch change.
In both of these incidents a total of 6 professional, pilots failed to recognise that their aircraft had stalled and thats one of the reasons why instructors need to make clear unambiguous statements about stalling
OK what he should have said was 'If you don't exceed the critical angle of attack, whatever the critical angle is for that aircraft in the given circumstances.'
To return to the original question I am not in favour.
The initial PPL has to be "doable". There lots of things that could be included and could be considered as important or more important (that arent). For example, more instrument time, which is probably more likely to save your life one day that knowing how to recover from a spin. So, firstly time is limited.
Add to the time limitation that for spin training to be worthwhile it should be covered reasonably well. You cant do that in one session. I am not sure demonstrating to the student a spin has much value. For most, the first time an aircraft spins they really have very little idea whats happening and are more than likely to do the wrong thing (other than as someone else said do nothing!). So, if it is to be taught, at least teach it properly.
The next issue is that these days many clubs simply dont own aircraft that can be spun, so there are the added complications of "hiring in" suitable aircraft.
Finally, I bet most instructors are not comfortable spinning these days so there is yet more "hiring in" to be done.
For these reasons all in all I dont see it should be included in the syllabus.
However, its definitely something to go and do and enjoy once you have your PPL.
I am sure that the PPL's on this thread will remember your words of advice if they ever fly an ATP in icing conditions. With no training for flying in icing conditions.
I suppose you train your imaginary PPL students for tail stalls as well.
And pray tell where you got RAF from, which flight sim site?
Doesn't have anything that would remotely affect your critical angle of attack under that TLA.
Daft thing is that you have no way of knowing what your critical angle of attack is when you do start picking up ice so therefore all your 1g stall speeds are out the window anyway.
And sideslipping while picking up ice, yep it happens every day that one.
The whole statement is flawed-in some areas of teaching it is essential to be precise-stalling is one of them
Quote:
If you had been taught to fly by attitude it wouldn't matter what your ASI was reading because if you were holding the correct attitude you wouldn't stall.
First thing you teach a student is the aircraft can stall at any attitude and any airspeed-so that statement is very misleading
No MJ, I just disagree with you but the difference is I do not need to belittle you or make libellous statements to reinforce my views.
Quote:
I see on another thread your telling John Farley whats important to know to fly a plane. Good luck with that one.
Yet another misleading statement-I actually mentioned to JF that knowledge of the Bernoulli principle is helpful for passing the CAA exams-only you could misrepresent that to mean I was trying to teach him to fly a plane.
If you have finished trying to belittle me now could we get back to the original thread?
OK Jock just to help my solicitor out, who disagrees with you, as there are people on here who know who I am:
Perhaps you would like to tell us all why you think I am a Walter Mitty who has never taught anyone to fly and is neither a flying instructor or a pilot.
So far we have:
1. Because I said a first solo student should receive some sort of briefing after first solo
2. Because I pointed out that an aircraft can be stalled at any airspeed or attitude
3 . Because i said an aircraft can stall without any pitch change due to icing or configuration change.
Are there anymore statements that you would like to share with him?
