Stall training in light singles

[Centaurus]

Don't know about UK SOP, but in Australia it is traditional to complete practice stall recoveries by a minimum of 3000ft AGL. This means clawing the typical C150/Jabiru or Warrior to around 3500 ft - an expensive long winded exercise dual or solo especially in summer temperatures.

Apart from it being a useful money spinner, why do flying school operators persist with this policy? Stalling is not considered an aerobatic manoeuvre (recoverable by 3000 ft agl), therefore it cannot be justified by that argument. One design purpose of these small trainers is to ensure that their stalling characteristics are benign - in fact even with gross mis-handling a student will seldom lose less than 200 ft on recovery. After a couple of practices, most students can recover safely within 100 ft height loss. If not - get another instructor..

Surely minimum stall recovery height depends primarily on aircraft type stall characteristics. It seems ridiculous to climb to 3500 to stall aircraft at a mere 45 knots with a height loss of 100ft. If there is a Regulation (never heard of one in my area)that nominates recovery by 3000 ft then surely it would be commonsense to apply for a concession dependant on aircraft type.

Is recovery by 3000 agl just another long standing myth perpetrated to add hours to instructors log books and flying school bank balances? Or is there a good reason that would stand up to intelligent and informed analysis?

[A and C]

No reason why you cant practice stalls at 1000 ft agl EXCEPT when the low time student gets it wrong and turns it into a spin recovery lesson.

Now you decide do you want to be in BALPA or the NUM.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

I generaly use 2500'. I suppose in Aus with a less dense atmosphere, it takes alot longer to get to 3000' than it does over here (especially with your dodgy Avgas as well ;) ).

As A&C quite rightly said, it can easily end up in a spin recovery lesson. I had a student decide to go with full rudder in a wing drop stall and drop it into a spin. Good learning experience for the both of us - him: correct stall recovery; me:don't get too complacent.

[TWINCOMM]

Centaurus,

As stated by the others here, spinning at 1000 ft is not really what many aspire to. There was a case a few years ago of a slow flight and stalling session in an AA5 going wrong and the aircraft losing over 4500 ft in the ensuing spin recovery.

On of the objects of teaching is to let students learn. Letting a ham fisted stall recovery develop into a demonstration of the effects of getting it wrong will have a far more lasting effect on your student than a string of 100ft height loss recoveries at 1000 ft

------------------
TwinComm

[chicken6]

I use "sufficient height to recover by 2500'" as the entry height. Depending on the exercise, this could be 3000' (Basic stalling 1) or 3500' (Wing drops) or 4000' (spinning). As for showing them what happens when they stuff up (eg. c/c fully forwards, relax power forward one inch, full rudder!), well, that's what the extra height is for. I don't want my students getting freaked out by the ground appearing to rush up _at all_, and above 2000'AGL all heights look the same to the 10hr pilot. I would rather concentrate on the correct recovery technique (that's full power, not full forward c/c Bloggs!) and get that instinctive before they come into the circuit.

Have you heard of affective learning? The student does what you do because that's all they know, so if I teach someone at 1000'AGL and they do alright (in their mind), then the gate is open for them to do it again on a solo. That might be the flight where they confuse forward c/c with forward throttle, and in recovering they snatch the c/c right back and snap roll (flick roll in UK) into the ground.

I'd rather have the height than not.

Safe flying

------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.

[Oleo]

Yeah NZ was "recovery above 2,500'", in the States it is recommended (I think in the Practical Test Standard) for recovery above 1,500'. Being affected by affective learning myself, I prefer the above 2,500', depending on the aeroplane and how well I know it. The docile Cherokee just mushes and porpoises, the school's C152 will snap into a spin if the student decides to pick up the dropped wing with aileron.

Altitude above you is one of the three things most useless to a pilot.

[Centaurus]

Thanks so far. Interesting point about the C150/152 wing drop, though. If the aircraft is correctly rigged there should very little tendency for a wing to drop unless the rudder is being pedalled at point of stall. I understand that the airworthiness certification flight test allows only a max of 15 degrees of wing drop under ANY stall condition. I guess that means if your C152 is dropping a wing badly (without pilot input) it would be a good idea to log it in the appropriate maintenance form as a defect - and get it fixed quickly. Would appreciate any info from your experiences on wing drop characteristics of the C150/152?

[Squawk 8888]

Wings level power-off stall is pretty boring, even with no control input the plane will only lose a couple of hundred feet. Wing drop becomes noticeable with power at 1400RPM or higher and is more pronounced when using flaps. Also lots of buffeting with flaps down. The most dramatic wing drop occurs in a climbing turn, especially in a right turn- the wing on the outside of the turn drops quite sharply.

[rolling circle]

Pretty sweeping statement, Squawk. Wings level power off stall in some aircraft is certain death, hence stick pusher being on the MEL. I thought instructors were meant to be concise in their statements.

[Squawk 8888]

Rolling Circle, I was responding to Centaurus' question about the C150/152 and detailing my experience with same (even the 172 stalls differently). Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The climb up to 3500 AGL can be made more beneficial by using this time for the student to practice precise climbs and climbing turns, ready for the circuits exercise that follows stalling. If the instructor is just sitting there looking out of the window then you are probably justified in feeling it's a bit of a waste of time. (In the GFPT I use this climb to cover the IF requirement.)

I have been doing this job long enough to not deliberately stall an aeroplane below 3500". That is why it's in the ops. manual as an SOP. The scariest stall I ever had was a wing drop in a Warrior, of all aeroplanes, where the student froze and applied full opposite aileron. It took 2500" to recover. (However, we run a low-level course where you do stall recoveries at 300', if you're interested!!)

It would be a tad naive to think that a wing will never drop and that we live in an ideal world where the students never touch the ailerons or rudder in a stall. And aeroplanes that you think you know well can turn around and bite you sometimes. They don't like flying slow.

Just a hint in this area...when recovering from a stall, if you teach them to apply forward pressure in the middle of the control column, like beeping the horn in your car, they are far less tempted to use aileron.

[Centaurus]

CFI.. Run that by me again. Are you saying that you do real stalls and recoveries at a real 300 ft agl? If you consider that a safe practice, then why on earth are you staggering up to 3500 ft for the same exercise?

[Tinstaafl]

Low level flying endorsement.

I once worked for a ag. pilot who used to teach ag. ratings. Those sorts of stalls were all ops. normal.

[FLY BY NIGHT]

I learnt in NZ. We had to do steep turns at 200' something my present school would certainly not endorse. The idea out there is that you should be able to get out of a valley should the cloud come down on you. 'Valley reversal' With stalling however I would rather have height on my side, having had a student put me into a spin. Once there he followed his stall recovery by applying full power. I took control but still wonder if I should have talked him through a recovery. If it happens again I believe thats what I'd do.

[300hrWannaB]

I'm with Chicken6 on this one, (even though I don't do instructing. Not everyone will jump out of the training 152 into another benign beastie. Then it is the quality of the training that comes back when you do solo practices. I still get that slightly rusty feeling in spring, and have to go through the mental checks in preparation for a re-familiarisation flight. THE hardest thing to remember is the (absence of) aileron, because it just ain't natural.
As for the tricks about pushing the middle of the control column; all decent aircraft have sticks.

Zooooooooo...........ooooooooooom

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Centaurus, yes, as a part of the low level approval course which is an advanced course and essential prerequisite for people who want to go on to ag work, mustering, surveying, water bombing etc. eg they would already hold a CPL or do it as part of their CPL training. It wouldn't be very safe if these people couldn't recover from a stall at the levels they would be working at. The course is run by a very experienced instructor who specialises in this type of advanced training.


The sad fatalities we see in the mustering industry of pilots who have never done this course (and therefore are operating illegally) shows how important this type of training is.


Of course we "stagger" up to 3500AGL for the ab-initio students, though it only takes about five minutes in my PA38 and those minutes can be used wisely if your instructor is doing the right thing by you.

[chicken6]

Centaurus

Regarding the rigging issue

I was under the impression that aeroplanes were rigged to fly S+L at cruise settings.

Surely this is not the same as the approach configuration. Power is different, flap is down instead of up, everything is more unstable and there's proportionately more torque than airflow over the rudder, with hardly anything over the outer wing.

I remember my Tomahawk rating (after CPL on Warriors, then instructing on C152 which I initially thought was pretty severe). It's the only type rating I don't like - even with no power and no flap it snapped a different way each time of four stalls. (?!)

I don't think a correctly rigged aeroplane will necessarily NOT drop any wing.

And Squawk8888, I don't notice any buffet in a S+L stall in a c152, with or without flap. The only ways I can get it to buffet are to

1) pull 4+ G (waaaaaaaay too much) going into a loop, or to ...
2) balls up a stall turn by ruddering too late or...
3) hit my own wake in a steep/max rate turn (LOVE that feeling) :)

------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.

[This message has been edited by chicken6 (edited 12 August 2000).]

[Centaurus]

The certification test flight requirements are among other things, that regardless of the configuration of the aircraft, there should be no more than 15 degrees of wing drop at point of stall. That means full flap and power on and clean power off. Naturally, any mis-rigging, damage, or inadvertant yaw will cause a wing drop.
A recent draft CASA document NPRM reveals that the minimum altitude for recovery from aerobatics has been reduced from the current 3000ft agl to 1500ft agl. This was confirmed today when I talked to a senior CASA FOI.
In view of this change, it will be interesting to see if flying schools around Australia adopt the new proposed rule of 1500 ft agl recovery. CFI. Would you then still have your students climb to above 3000 agl for stall recovery practice?

[Mr B. Tupp]

I agree with Chicken6. I teach in the C152 and I witness a lot of people talking about "Buffet" in the stall. I think the word is missused in the C152's case. Buffet from a stall should be felt through the control column caused by the stalled airflow hitting the tailplane and "buffeting" the elevator, something that does not happen in a C152 as the stalled airflow passes well over the top of the tailplane i.e. high wing low tailplane configuration.
One of the best aiurcraft to experience true buffet in a stallo is the Bulldog - low wing low tailplane!

Interested to hear more thoughts!

[BEagle]

Yes - but the Bulldog has wing root strips designed specifically for the purpose of inducing pre-stall buffet over the tailplane and elevators.

[Tinstaafl]

The Victa Airtourer uses pre-stall buffet as its stall warning 'system'. Or more correctly, for flaps 0 stall warning.

A horn is used when flaps are extended.

The buffet is quite noticable through the column in the clean configuration, less so with flaps out.

A lovely little a/c. Won the Royal Aero Club competition in the 1960s
for a new training a/c.

Aerobatic, reasonably roomy, good visibility. The 100 hp versions are a bit anaemic in their performance but a 150 or 160 hp version is certainly fun. They glide like a brick though.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Yes I will. Safety is the priority and older trainers don't always perform the same as they did on certification day, with a brand new aeroplane and an experienced test pilot in ideal conditions.
I've been teaching this stuff long enough not to expect that students with about four hours in their logbooks will handle the aeroplane in the same way at the stall as the test pilot did.
What's wrong with a bit of spare altitude? You have to give them enough room to make mistakes and recover from them; no point the instructor jumping onto the controls too early because they are about to ram the scenery.
I don't quite see how you can compare aerobatics with teaching ab-initio students stall recoveries.


[This message has been edited by Charlie Foxtrot India (edited 26 August 2000).]

[chicken6]

Hear hear

Q. What's the difference between a student pilot with three solo hours and one with a PPL and some aerobatics training?

A. Surely you know the answer.

I have found that some students recover quicker from a power-off stall by letting go rather than trying to do "SOMETHING RIGHT BLOODY NOW BECAUSE IT'S STALLED AND I'M GOING TO DIE". So I introduce the recovery bit by bit.

If they want to go and practice this method of confidence-building on their own, that's OK with me as long as I know they've got the height. We can go to 4500' here in Class G airspace, so if they are nervous they can go to 4000' if they want to. There's nothing wrong with spare height for students, and I don't see a good reason to change the way we teach stalling.

Safe flying

------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.

[Tandem-Seater]

He who makes no mistakes makes nothing. A student should be allowed the time to make a few mistakes whilst under supervision. If that means allowing a little more altitude "for the wife and kids" then so be it. As already mentioned, the stall should not be taught as a standalone package but should build on other skills already taught, therefore the climb to a safe altitude can be used to good effect. Remembering that the job of a good instructor is to show the student as many pitfalls as possible as he may not live long enough to make them all himself