I find this thread very illuminating. People are talking about picking up wings with rudder and 112hp engines causing the aircraft to rotate around it's longitudinal axis with the controls having no effect and/or causing 'flat spins'. This all makes me believe that they have been taught incorrectly and are teaching incorrectly.
I'm talking about the CAA /JAR syllabus here and not the FAA or CASA one, which I have little experience of but I believe they are similar. I always thought that stalling exercise was a prevention exercise and to get the best out of it, recognition has to be taught first. Then recovery with minimum height loss in various configurations and attitudes. The key to this is with 'minimum height loss' and you can only achieve this with the application of power. This is how I was taught to teach the exercise and how I always did it myself.
1: Recognition - take some time on this, if the student can't recognize the warnings of the approaching stall or the stall itself there is no point in continuing.
2: Recovery - this can be achieved with reducing the angle of attack. You should elicit from the student the height loss, then point out the loss with use of power. (The last aircraft I was teaching on, the PA 28 typically lost 300' in a recovery without power, 100' with.)
This should take a minimum of a whole hour long lesson if it's going to be done properly with the average student. Then:
3: Recognition and recovery in other configurations/ attitudes (with flap, power, gear, air brakes, asymmetric, any attitude - even upside down if you like!) The key to this is the recovery with min height loss with the emphasis of saving you skin on the approach to landing stall. To achieve this effectively, you have to build up a scenario with a high workload and distractions. this should take more than one lesson.
The stall recovery is simplicity itself in it's execution (although you wouldn't believe it reading this thread!). You move the control column centrally forward until the buffet stops, simultaneously applying full power. You use the rudder TO PREVENT FURTHER YAW - and this only! When the wings are unstalled (i.e there is no buffet - and this is another reason you have to have to have the recognition squared away), you select a level attitude with aileron and elevator.
Some points on what has been said here.
Use of rudder: tramping the rudder around other than to prevent yaw is asking for trouble. The primary recognition points of an incipient spin are buffet with undemand yaw. If you demand some yaw intentionally by using more rudder than is required to prevent any yaw from the action of the stall or applying power, you are inviting the aircraft to spin.
Use of aileron: By increasing the angle of attack by lowering an aileron, you are inducing the wing to stall deeper. In my experience the only aircraft where aileron use with buffet was appropriate was a swept wing jet where the aerodynamics are very different.
Use of power: To reduce the height loss, you need power. The last aircraft I instructed on professionally stalled at about 80 knots and has a 1200hp engine. There was no problem controlling it at the point of stall with full power. The only aircraft to my knowledge which had a problem with this was the Bolton Paul Baliol with a 1600hp merlin engine. It was taken out of RAF service partly for this reason. If an aircraft cannot be controlled in this fashion it would not be certified. (This may not apply to some multi-engine types asymmetric if they are at or below their Vmca).
The only slightly dodgy stall characteristic I have ever experienced was the Tucano which rolls to about 120 degrees angle of bank at the stall in a final approach configuration stall in a left turn. Still, by following the recognized recovery technique, it is still possible to recover in about 400' safely. To get to this stage though, you have to ignore the warnings of the high nose attitude, the less effective controls, the low and decreasing airspeed, the audio warner, the stick shaker, the angle of attack gauge, the approach angle of attack indicator - and the buffet! This re-enforces the emphasis on recognition.
Roll on instructor standardization!
Last edited by Dan Winterland; 2nd April 2006 at 04:15.