Stalling in Landing Configuration...?

[scifi]

During one Bi-annual check-ride, the instructor asked for a 'Stall in the Landing Configuration'. I explained that this was a Cessna 172 and that it hadn't ever done stalls in the landing configuration. However he asked for me to set up the airplane, which I did... 75 knots, two stages of flap, and about 700ft/m rate of descent. I said my previous instructors had done 'Stalls with Flaps', but had never mentioned Landing Configuration.


Anyway we tried, but as long as we held 75knots / -700ft/m, there was no way the C172 was ever going to stall. We even tried 60 degree banked turns, but still no stalls...... We then went on to do some other exercises.


.

[Talkdownman]

Try it in something which bites next time...

[tescoapp]

Well the only thing you can take from that is that you never managed to get over the critical angle of attack.

There is a exercise to which you should have done which is recover from an incipient stall in the landing configuration which is set up as you say then pitch up gradually maintaining a shallow decent until the stall warner goes of and then recover from there. Its not mean to be a fully developed stall or have a constant airspeed. It meant to simulate you pitching up on approach without adding power because you are low and not noticing your airspeed is decreasing.

The other one is a turn with partial configuration and again recover with the stall warner.

Its not the best idea of intentionally trying to get a fully developed stall in a steep turn, you can quite easily manage to stall one wing and not the other and get thrown over the top in either direction into a fully developed spin in a mode which may never have been looked at in the certification flight tests and may not be recoverable using the POH technique.

[India Four Two]

scifi,

Try a similar exercise, using full-flap and full-power. ;)

As an aside, 75 kts is a very high speed to be using for approach. Vso is 53-55 kts (depending on the model year).

A 55 kt approach speed will give you an easier flare and shorter landing. I routinely use this speed, with 50 kts over the fence, in a C182.

[B2N2]

Stall in landing configuration or approach configuration is essentially the same thing.
Many different ways you can practice a stall and it’s recovery and you should try them all under guidance:

- Wings level, maintaining altitude.
Landing config and power to idle and try and maintain altitude till the aircraft stalls. Attempt minimum altitude loss in the recovery without a secondary stall.

- Wings level, descending.
Landing config, power idle and trim for approach speed. Then slowly raise the nose while still continuing the descent as if you are trying to extend the glide on final.

- Banking, maintaining altitude.
Landing config or approach config.
Power idle and you’re mimicking a turn in the circuit.

- Banking, descending.
Landing config, power idle.
Mimicking a descending turn in the pattern.

Now do all of the above with different flap settings from UP to FULL down.
Purpose of all these excercises is multiple. Develop muscle memory for the recovery. Steer away from the ‘mental’ picture that the aircraft can only stall in one attitude in one configuration.


Honestly you’ve been done a disservice in your pilot training if you haven’t been taught all of the above plus all the ‘power-on’ variations.

[Pilot DAR]

Scifi, Think of a "configuration" as not including a specific speed or power setting. "Configuration" is flap setting (in degrees on a Cessna, not "stages"), landing gear is already down for you, the prop is probably already fine, and you're not worrying about cowl flaps. With the configuration set, you're approaching the stall as the flight manual says: Slow deceleration. If you are maintaining the speed (75 knots is way too fast), to approach stall, you'll have to cause a change in something else, like increasing G. This is a massive deviation from a landing configuration type of flying.

A 172 will stall delightfully with any flap setting, and within 45 degrees of wings level, if approached with steady flight and slow deceleration. Yes, huge variations in power setting may also be used, and it is good to be familiar with the differences in how this affects a stall, however, I suggest that you perfect this all at low or no power first, and with your good technique refined, then start to repeat with greater power settings.

Early in section 5 of the later 172 flight manual, you will find the stall speed per flap setting and angle of bank. 75KIAS does not appear for any approved combination of these variables, so one could assume that you cannot safely make the 172 stall with any flap setting and 60 degrees bank.

I am relaxed with the idea that in general, 172s, like many other GA types, are stalled in landing configuration, mere inches above the runway, during landings.

[funfly]

Stalling in landing config is one of the most important things to practice, especially being able to anticipate it.
As India 42 comments you could be at a much slower speed and the ability to feel the approach of a stall in this state is vital, it can happen (from personal experience). Can't understand it not being part of your training.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not disagreeing with my learned colleagues, particularly my friend DAR, but...

During one Bi-annual check-ride, the instructor asked for a 'Stall in the Landing Configuration'. I explained that this was a Cessna 172 and that it hadn't ever done stalls in the landing configuration.

Every aeroplane is stalled in flight testing for certification, in every configuration that can be achieved.

Stalling in the landing configuration is certainly here in Britain, quite often flown in aeroplane checkouts.


However he asked for me to set up the airplane, which I did... 75 knots, two stages of flap, and about 700ft/m rate of descent. I said my previous instructors had done 'Stalls with Flaps', but had never mentioned Landing Configuration.

If it's configured as for landing, it's in the landing configuration. The English language is a marvellous thing.


Anyway we tried, but as long as we held 75knots / -700ft/m, there was no way the C172 was ever going to stall. We even tried 60 degree banked turns, but still no stalls...... We then went on to do some other exercises.

Here's the wording in FAR-23, which is the certification standard which was used to certify the C172 (by bold).

Sec. 23.201 Wings level stall.

(a) It must be possible to produce and to correct roll by unreversed
use of the rolling control and to produce and to correct yaw by
unreversed use of the directional control, up to the time the airplane
stalls.
(b) The wings level stall characteristics must be demonstrated in
flight as follows. Starting from a speed at least 10 knots above the
stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled back so that the rate
of speed reduction will not exceed one knot per second until a stall is
produced, as shown by either:
(1) An uncontrollable downward pitching motion of the airplane;
(2) A downward pitching motion of the airplane that results from the
activation of a stall avoidance device (for example, stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
(c) Normal use of elevator control for recovery is allowed after the
downward pitching motion of paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section
has unmistakably been produced, or after the control has been held
against the stop for not less than the longer of two seconds or the time
employed in the minimum steady slight speed determination of Sec.
23.49.
(d) During the entry into and the recovery from the maneuver, it
must be possible to prevent more than 15 degrees of roll or yaw by the
normal use of controls.
(e) Compliance with the requirements of this section must be shown
under the following conditions:
(1) Wing flaps. Retracted, fully extended, and each intermediate
normal operating position.
(2) Landing gear. Retracted and extended.
(3) Cowl flaps. Appropriate to configuration.
(4) Power:
(i) Power off; and
(ii) 75 percent of maximum continuous power. However, if the power-
to-weight ratio at 75 percent of maximum continuous power result in
extreme nose-up attitudes, the test may be carried out with the power
required for level flight in the landing configuration at maximum
landing weight and a speed of 1.4 V<INF>SO</INF>, except that the power
may not be less than 50 percent of maximum continuous power.
(5) Trim. The airplane trimmed at a speed as near 1.5 V<INF>S1</INF>
as practicable.
(6) Propeller. Full increase r.p.m. position for the power off
condition.


Full back stick, unable to pitch up more, that's a stall as defined in the regulations. Full flap, extended gear (if you have extendable gear), power at pretty much anything between idle and 75% or full power, that's there too.


I think that, just possibly, the instructor might have known more than you did chap.


Also, if you're nervous of stalling a C172 with full flap, I'd suggest never ever even contemplating flying a PA38 without a grown up sat next to you!

G

[ChickenHouse]

Quite easy, if a C172 ever stalls in fully developed landing configuration and slowed down - it does have a rigging problem. It is one standard I do first when renting out a 172. If it is rigged correct it will go to parachuting, not stall.

[scifi]

Hi Funfly, I've done stalls in all sorts of ways, Accelerated, Power On, Power Off, Banked, Flaps and Flapless, but had never used the terminology 'in the Landing Configuration'.
There was no way I could stall the C172, and remain on the simulated glide path, maintaining the Landing Configuration... We used up a good 3000ft of airspace, and even pulled some fancy spiral dives trying...
.
As for the speed being high, my Checklist says... Normal Approach 65-75 KIAS. which I take to mean 75 on approach, and 65 over the fence.
.

[scifi]

Hi Genghis, thanks for the details from FAR-24 Sec 23-201... So they say it is stalled if we hold the stick back for at least 2 seconds... Well I suppose I did that, but nothing happened in the same way that a PA38 would have responded.
.

[Pilot DAR]

There was no way I could stall the C172, and remain on the simulated glide path, maintaining the Landing Configuration

You could stall a 172 going down, going up, or staying level - the engine power you've chosen will be the determining factor. If the engine is at idle, you'll be going down. The stall will be evident by your loss of pitch control, either you can no longer raise the nose, or you cannot prevent it from lowering. The path of the plan is not a factor.

You cannot safely stall a 172 at 75KIAS (refer to stall speed table in FM), so you're going to have to slow down to get the plane to safely stall in any configuration. If high speed stalls are in your plan, the aircraft should be equipped with a G meter. (As an aside, I find it amusing/alarming that the G limits are pilot limitations, which aside from a coordinated banked turn, the pilot cannot determine).

Landing configuration in a 172 will be any configuration in which you can land (flaps up or flaps down). There really are no variables which take a 172 out of landing configuration. If you have too much power, or too much speed, it won't land, otherwise, you're in landing configuration if you allow it to slow (hopefully over a suitable landing surface).

The actual C of G position will affect the stall indication to the pilot, between controls full back, descending, or nose drops while controls held well back - either is a stall. Happily, a 172 is very docile, and no matter how you stall it, will be recoverable with no excitement with adequate altitude. Stalls conducted with angles of bank exceeding 60 degrees, or G loading exceeding the limitations are unsafe, but certainly are nothing near flight from which a landing could easily be made.

There are some types (Ercoupe, for example) which are pitch control limited, to provide a stall barrier to the pilot. You can hold the controls full back, and the nose will not drop (though the plane may be going down!). This makes those types poor primary trainers - pilots need to learn to stall and recover.

[Flyingmac]

.
As for the speed being high, my Checklist says... Normal Approach 65-75 KIAS. which I take to mean 75 on approach, and 65 over the fence.
.



I've a fair few hundred hours on the 172/182. For me it's a little steeper than the three degrees I often see, and 55 all the way down final. A few knots more if it's particularly gusty. 75 is just plain silly. 65 is still ten too much.:=

[scifi]

Hi Flyingmac, what you need is an Extra 300, then you can practice Prop-Hanging correctly.
.

[Pilot DAR]

then you can practice Prop-Hanging correctly

A number of types will prop hang, the 172, just a little. Prop hanging in any form is very risky. In the case of engine failure, a gliding landing will not be possible, unless, you're many hundreds of feet up.

In general, 172's could be happily flown on a power on full flap landing approach at 60KIAS, and a gliding approach at 65-70KIAS. More speed is generally not helpful.

[Piltdown Man]

If you want to fly an approach at an absurd and totally pointless 75 kts then fill your boots. But please don’t cry about floating, using all tbe runway available or going through the far hedge. But I digress. The stall in landing configuration is achieved by reducing speed (at one knot per second) until the stall, not by holding your approach speed.

PM

ps. Where did you get your checklist? Wherever it was, don’t go back. The POH has all the information you really need. No more and no less.

[horizon flyer]

One of the killers in flying is the turn from base leg on to approach stall. So I think as an exercise set it up with 30 of flap, 1500rpm, flying straight and level just hold altitude and wait. Min altitude 4000 agl and an instructor.

Due to the spiralling airflow of the prop normally one wing will stall first. The objective to correct with less than 500ft of height loss, because if not, your dead on a real approach. The idea is to teach how to recover and keep the speed up in the circuit add 4 kt for the turns. The first time I did this in a 150 the instructor never told me what would happen and I lost 1500 ft but only 150ft on the next try. Spin entry to the right over corrected spin entry to the left, while winding up the flaps and closing the throttle.

So I think it is an important exercise and teaches even the 152/172 can bit.

Note in a 172 with passengers in the back, it may not be so much of a pussy cat, pushes the CG back and ups the weight, which affects stall speeds and pitch sensitivity.

[27/09]

..... but had never used the terminology 'in the Landing Configuration'.

You need to get out more.

There was no way I could stall the C172, and remain on the simulated glide path, maintaining the Landing Configuration...

Landing configuration has nothing to do with speed nor glidepath. As others have said it's all about aircraft configuration, i.e. position of the gear, flaps settings, prop settings, etc.

[27/09]

I've a fair few hundred hours on the 172/182. For me it's a little steeper than the three degrees I often see, and 55 all the way down final. A few knots more if it's particularly gusty. 75 is just plain silly. 65 is still ten too much.:=

55 all the way down final is also plain silly. A really good way to piss off any aircraft following behind you.

For a C172 or C182 speed down final should be from initially around 75 slowing to 55 at the threshold.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Anyway we tried, but as long as we held 75knots / -700ft/m, there was no way the C172 was ever going to stall. We even tried 60 degree banked turns, but still no stalls...... We then went on to do some other exercises.


.

This is silly. The maximum Gee load permitted with the flaps down is +3.0 Gee. At 60 deg of bank you are already at 2.0 so a hard pull to try to get a stall is likely to get close to the max load.

There is no reason to do this and the POH is clear that spins are prohibited with the flaps down. If you did get it to stall with 60 deg of bank and lots of power you are going to be in for an interesting ride.

In any case the whole point of the landing configuration stall is to show the student that the airplane will be in only a slightly nose up pitch attitude when it stalls, unlike the introductory stalls where the aircraft will be in quite a nose high attitude. Therefore it is a good demonstration of the importance of maintaining the correct pitch attitude to maintain airspeed on final.

I always teach this exercise as if when on final, finding yourself low you raise the nose to try to get to the end of the runway instead of adding power.

[Pontius]

as long as we held 75knots / -700ft/m, there was no way the C172 was ever going to stall.

I'm just checking whether there's been a time slip and we're back to the 1st of this month.

Are you being serious? Of course the thing isn't going to stall if you're just sitting there simulating an approach :ugh:. I don't know who I find more ridiculous; you for doing such a thing or your instructor for watching you and not asking, "what the hell are you doing?"

It's stalling in the approach CONFIGURATION i.e. with the gear, prop pitch and flaps set up as if you're landing........and then you stall the aircraft in that CONFIGURATION, just like you'd stall any other time. To properly simulate the configuration, you leave some power on and then just fly level or slightly nose up to avoid being there all day (you can pretend to be stretching the approach), let it stall and recover. You don't let it descend at 700 feet per minute or guess what doesn't happen.

You can call it 'stalling with flap' if you like because you're not (normally) going to be altering the gear or prop pitch in a 172 but it's still in the approach configuration and is a term so often used I find it very difficult to believe you've never heard of it before.

Yes, a spade is called a spade.

[Heston]

Sci-Fi has been 'outed' as a troll on at least two previous occasions.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hi Genghis, thanks for the details from FAR-24 Sec 23-201... So they say it is stalled if we hold the stick back for at least 2 seconds... Well I suppose I did that, but nothing happened in the same way that a PA38 would have responded.
.

Indeed, they're completely different types, with different handling.

Over the years I've seen stall defined by...

- Full back stick and high rate of descent
- Pitch break
- Incipient spin with no warning
- Pitch break with wing drop
- Roll inverted (that was somewhat unacceptable and we did have to do something about that).
- Increasing amplitude wing rock

All of those I'm happy to have defined as "the stall", the levels of acceptability did vary somewhat. It just happens that the C172 in most configuration / CG combinations does the first.

Which, incidentally is one of the reasons I rate the C172 as one of the worst training aeroplanes readily available - a training aeroplane should teach rather more respect for the aircraft, and particularly the low speed range than the 172 does. You may recall FAA, EASA and CAA half a dozen years ago evangelising about how schools should NOT be teaching powering out of a stall without pitch inputs. That was, in my opinion, significantly because they were teaching in one of two types (the tapered wing PA28s being the other) which are so benign you can get away with that.

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Sci-Fi has been 'outed' as a troll on at least two previous occasions.

And there was me just labelling him as not very bright!

G

[funfly]

This can happen, don’t get complacenent.
I was attemting to land at Ashcroft many years ag and did a low level flight over the runway to have a look. In practice I was flying slower and slower, although I didn’t stall, i realised I was not far off.
Can happen to anyone, be prepared

[horizon flyer]

scfi As I said before this is an important exercise but approach speed is 1.3xStall which changes with load and flap setting. Not some number plucked out of the air. I think 75knts is higher than the best climb speed. So to fast. But for this exercise it is not about speed it's about stalling in the landing configuration. 30 of flap 14 to 1600 rpm and trying to fly level with speed bleeding off. The point is this will be almost straight and level flight, looks normal not some nose high configuration and when it stalls she will suddenly drop a wing. Another config that can bit is in a sideslip adding full power some Cessnas will roll on their back so fast difficult to catch always return to balanced flight before adding power. The other one not practised very often is in a nose high full power climb chopping the power the nose hast to be lowered very quickly or it will stall.

So the point is visual clues do not always warn you and speed bleeds of very quickly with the extra drag of flaps. It happens most in the final turn when the nose is not dropped a little for extra speed and the up going wing stalls.

I remember an accident at Shoreham a student pilot in the circiut was distracted by other traffic, as in landing config speed decayed quickly and he spun in, so an important exercise.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I remember an accident at Shoreham a student pilot in the circiut was distracted by other traffic, as in landing config speed decayed quickly and he spun in, so an important exercise.

Southend in a C150 I think.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/cessna-f150l-g-babb-19-july-2006

I'd argue that whilst flying the *correct* approach speed is important in both types, they have markedly different aLSS and stall characteristics.

G

[horizon flyer]

Hi Genghis it was back around 73 I nearly did the same thing myself in an Aerobat doing solo circuits had 40 of flap on and distracted it was only the sloppy controls that caused me to go to full power.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I did some testing in the same C150 variant myself after Southend. We showed a pull force to stall with the trimmer fully nose-down, in the full flap / full power combination in the order of half a pound.

G

[Pilot DAR]

30 of flap 14 to 1600 rpm and trying to fly level

Which of the several approved pitches for the propeller would this be? Or, to say otherwise, I suggest less attention to RPM as a number to be an indication of power, as it can vary plane to plane. Instead, be aware of what the plane is doing relative to what you would like it to do, and adjust power as needed.

If a strut braced Cessna is dropping a wing, or otherwise not stalling wings level, it's worth reporting this to the maintainer. It is likely that the wing cams are not properly set. In addition to adjusting the angle of incidence of each wing, the adjustment of the cams also has a slight, though perceptible effect to sweep a wing forward or aft. It could be the case that one wing is swept slightly forward, and the other aft, which will affect handling at low speed.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hi Genghis it was back around 73 I nearly did the same thing myself in an Aerobat doing solo circuits had 40 of flap on and distracted it was only the sloppy controls that caused me to go to full power.

Phil Lucas at Ipswich and I were talking about this a long time ago, to prove his point he and I took a 152 Aerobat up and set ourselves up with half flap, low power, carb heat on, plenty of height and a left turn simulating base to finals. As the controls started to go sloppy and the aircraft began to feel unhappy Phil said "Full power now." The subsequent torque roll threw us the other way and she spun faster than I had ever seen an Aerobat spin.

All because I had told him about torque effects on a P51 I had been flying in America.

During my course at Oxford Air Training school in the depths of history we did the same exercise in PA28's. They were far more benign, but the exercise was thoroughly drummed home, stalling in a turn in the landing configuration can be evil if the recovery is mis-handled.

One of the witnesses to this https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/socata-tbm-700b-n30lt-6-december-2003 told me that it looked like a torque roll and certainly later models of the aircraft have had serious modifications to minimise the torque effect from a sharp increase of power.

For the OP, if this was new to you I'd be asking why I wasn't taught about it during my PPL course. Its' probably not part of the PPL sylabus, but it should be, many aircraft will seriously bite in landing configuration.

SND

[Genghis the Engineer]

Not quite its intended purpose, but there's a paper here where a team of researchers stalled 14 different aeroplane types - including the C172 in both cruise and landing configurations and flew a range of different recoveries.

https://www.aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Protected/Subscribers/AeroJournal/3965.pdf

G

[BackPacker]

Sci-Fi has been 'outed' as a troll on at least two previous occasions.

Thought so. What triggered me is that the instructor apparently asked to "perform a stall in the landing configuration" instead of "an approach to stall in the landing configuration".

That distinction is important. When you're in the landing configuration that's usually because you're landing (duh), and thus happen to be close to the ground (duh). So you need to recognise the early signs of a stall and act upon it immediately. You can't let the stall develop, because you don't have the height to recover.

So every time I've done this exercise, the exercise briefing always included "recovery on the first sign of the stall". Which were:
- Stall warner
- Sloppy controls
- Buffet
- ASI at the lower end of the white band

Recovery is standard: pitch down sufficient to break the stall, full power, establish climb, clean up the aircraft and climb away (go around). But do NOT sink any further: The whole exercise should be done without height loss.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Plenty of us have performed, or taught, stalls in the landing configuration.

Just because the most common exercise with students is "recovery from the first symptom of the stall" doesn't mean that one can't, or shouldn't, actually stall it sometimes.

G

[Tankengine]

If you stall a small Cessna with landing flap and some power, especially from a right hand turn, you WILL roll off to the left, probably quicker than you think!
This is not a miss rigging, and I have seen this on many individual aircraft.

It is a great shame that some instructors only teach up to the approach to the stall.
Stalls in themeselves are not dangerous, I like to show students what happens when you DONT recover straight away! ;)

[tescoapp]

This day and age unfortunately anything outside the syllabus of your training organisation and your exposing yourself.

If your syllabus gives you the option and its been approved by the powers that be then there is no problem.

If the syllabus tells you its only incipient you should take it too then that's what you have to do.

Outside a formal course structure fill your boots.

My FIC had all the stalls in it until stall as exercises that I had to take control and recover from the RHS while the FII put the aircraft into them. But it was not a pattering exercise it was pure recovery handling and I wasn't expected to teach them to a PPL. And it was documented in the FIC syllabus.

[BackPacker]

Plenty of us have performed, or taught, stalls in the landing configuration.

Just because the most common exercise with students is "recovery from the first symptom of the stall" doesn't mean that one can't, or shouldn't, actually stall it sometimes.

G

Totally agree. But the OP question was specifically about the biannual checkride. In that context, I would expect the exercise to be about the approach to stall, not about the stall itself.

One tiny thing about stalling in the landing configuration though is that quite a few aircraft have lower G loading limits with flaps down (typically only 2G). If you stall in the landing configuration, get into a wingdip and then mess up the initial recovery, you may end up getting pretty near, or even over that limit. Not saying it can't be done. Just saying it's something to consider when you do this exercise.

[Flyingmac]

55 all the way down final is also plain silly. A really good way to piss off any aircraft following behind you.




Only if I flew Bomber circuits. I tend to turn final at around 400ft and less than a half mile out. Don't you?

[Flyingmac]

"But the OP question was specifically about the biannual checkride."


What is that?

[rusty sparrow]

Despite this thread being kicked off by a troll, the reminders about care in adding power while turning in landing configuration are very useful.

[BackPacker]

"But the OP question was specifically about the biannual checkride."


What is that?

It's the FAA way of maintaining currency. In order to fly a SE aircraft you need to have done this specific checkride, called the biennual flight review (BFR), with an instructor in the last two years.

[Flyingmac]

It's the FAA way of maintaining currency. In order to fly a SE aircraft you need to have done this specific checkride, called the biennual flight review (BFR), with an instructor in the last two years.



There was I thinking it meant twice a year.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=5p7UWtPmF86UkwWzxbnICg&q=Biannual&oq=Biannual&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l5j0i10k1j0.2849.7632.0.10128.8.8.0.0.0.0.101.727.6j2 .8.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.8.726...0i131k1j0i131i46k1j46i131k1j0i10i46k1j46i10k1. 0.cb-rrFwal_Q

[scifi]

Just a few words about this 'landing configuration'.. I have looked through my PPL course details, including the Pooleys Pilot's Work Book, and 'Landing Configuration' is not mentioned for Ex.10A Ex.10B or Ex11.
I also had an Instructor who asked for TTTT when approaching a Waypoint, which turned out he meant Transit, Turn, Trim, and Talk.
Where these terms come from I have no idea, maybe they are used in USA.


I have encountered the 'wing-flip' stall once when encountering my wake turbulence during a complete orbit, It flipped me out of the turn very quickly.

[Pilot DAR]

While discussing the angry handling characteristics of certified GA aircraft, remember that they have, during certification, demonstrated that their handling characteristics, including stall recovery, can be accomplished without the need for unusual pilot skill and attention (FAR 23.143)

....(b) It must be possible to make a smooth transition from one flight condition to another (including turns and slips) without exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength, and without danger of exceeding the limit load factor, under any probable operating condition ....

At certain amendment levels of 23.201 (stalls) power is not to be required during stall recovery (meaning you must be able to recover entirely power off). That said, nowhere in the requirements is there an objective to prevent altitude loss during a stall recovery. This notion seems to be a training thing. The idea that the application of power should be the first action to recover a stall worries me - what if the engine fails then?!

So the handling, and departure from controlled flight which may accompany an approach to stall, or actual stall in any configuration has been demonstrated during certification to comply with these requirements.

During certification stall testing, smooth air is desirable. If turbulent air is encountered during flight, including stalls, things can be very different.

In a Cessna 152/172/182/PA-28, landing configuration could be any configuration for which flight is possible (landing gear position as required, if applicable). The use of flaps, carb heat, propeller fine, cowl flaps are not required to accomplish a safe landing - just a good idea. Landing configuration need not be defined for a simple GA aircraft, it's about any configuration. If an instructor/examiner seeks a particular configuration, they should state it.

Yes, in a turning stall, the sudden application of lots of power can be destabilizing. This should be taught. If a pilot initiates a stall recovery at altitude, the application of a lot of power need not be necessary until the stall is recovered, as with lots of altitude, the pilot has some to spare to assure that stall recovery is less challenged. If the pilot has approached a stall at low altitude, and power is required during recovery, okay, the attempt should be made, but that pilot already has placed themselves into a precarious situation. Low altitude flight flight should not be out of control flight.

If a pilot wants to do a full stall in landing configuration, and they are well aligned with a suitable landing surface a few feet under them, very good!

[tescoapp]

Stalls and recovery:
(i) clean stall;
(ii) approach to stall in descending turn with bank with approach configuration and power;
(iii) approach to stall in landing configuration and power;
(iv) approach to stall, climbing turn with take-off flap and climb power (single-engine aeroplane only)

That's the official line from EASA with what you should be able to do from COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1178/2011 the number iv) was added in 2011
The TTTT thing has been going around for years and it gets perverted and changed, its not an official syllabus thing.

I think it was.

T turn
T time record the time you turned.
T forgotten that one might have been trim
T twist which was reset your DI so you didn't go off on some nonsense heading and get lost.

It might have been 5 t's, its bound to have come from some RAF CFS method and its raw form how it originally was worked a treat.

[TheOddOne]

Well, now the following is taught:

T T T

being

Turn
Time
Talk

In other words, at the waypoint, focus entirely on the threat and error management of your turn on to your new heading
Then note the time
Once stabilised on your new heading (gross error checks and a FREDA carried out) tell whoever you've been talking to on the radio

sorry about the thread drift.

TOO

[Vilters]

Well, I don't know the examiner who would ask such a thing.
STALL means STALL = Loss of speed and control.

Holding 75 kts is not going to get you anywhere "near" stall in a C-172 unless you are willing to pull the wings off the thing. => High "G" load.

And then, with Flaps. . Come on . . . Max "G" load with flaps is 2 G.

Flaps + holding 75 kts? => You can fly the tanks dry without ever getting "ANYWHERE" close to stalling.
You are AT LEAST 15 kts ABOVE a possible stall.
Add some power to that and you are 20 kts ABOVE stalling.

We used to fly a C-172 right into the stall, add power, add more power till at FULL power and cruise along at 30 kts indicated.
With only 2 on board and light on fuel, we could get to 27 kts IAS. Yeah, yeah, that poor horn blaring like a stricken goat. LOL.
It' called flying on the back side of the stall speed. Transfer weight from the wing to the powerplant.
Less weight for the wing to carry and the stall speed drops off to ridiculous values.

BALL centered at ALL times. That's the only "must do".

[Gertrude the Wombat]

We used to fly a C-172 right into the stall, add power, add more power till at FULL power and cruise along at 30 kts indicated.
Done that in a 152. Heading into wind, of course, so that by looking at the ground we could see that we were flying backwards.

[Pilot DAR]

My C 150, with a Horton STOL kit is capable of sustained flight, and 15 degree banked turns at 22 MPH indicated. However, when I installed a swiveling pitot head and second ASI, I found that the actual airspeed was 41 MPH. So that would be a case where the position error on the pitot tube was extreme, and the difference between IAS and CAS was huge. But, it's fun to look at 22 MPH, and think to one's self: "wow, that's slow!".

Careful doing that for sustained periods though, as the CHT gets hot, and could be damaging.

[Crash one]

There are threads on here and next door that have people getting very hot under the collar regarding the use of the words "stall" and "speed" in the same sentence.
Especially among those who like to be upside down a lot.
Having said that "landing configuration" is the determining factor here, which usually involves being straight and level, reduced power, some flaps, flying slower than cruise speeds etc. Trying to stretch the glide without increasing power seems to cause the problems, so is unlikely to result in maintaining 75 knots on a 172.
At 75 knots and decending at 700fpm is never going to stall because the "landing configuration" including airspeed and rate of decent are maintained.
The only way to stall that is to raise the nose, reducing the speed and increasing the angle of attack.
Or have I just stated the bleeding obvious again?

[NorthSouth]

Crash one, trouble is the bleedn' obvious clearly isn't.

One of the big problems is that "landing configuration" is rarely if ever actually flown. First of all the starting point should be Vref, i.e 1.3 x Vso adjusted for aircraft weight. Most light aircraft final approaches are flown at way higher than 1.3 x Vso.

NS

[Genghis the Engineer]

If we are in the game of stating the obvious, could I wade in and point out that configuration and speed are two different things.

In any given configuration, there are a range of speeds ay which the aeroplane may be flown.

G

[MarcK]

I would like to point out that Vs0 is "stall speed in landing configuration" (at least on my side of the pond) which, in a 172, means full flap. That's the bottom of the white arc. You may, of course, actually land using less flap. I think most instructors teach full flap landings, except when wind conditons suggest otherwise. Certainly, short field landings are full flap.

[nkt2000]

I was taught to deal with stalls in the landing configuration when turn from base to final. I usually have two stages of flap at that time and leave the final stage until on final (if I use it at all, depending on the wind). I guess the learning outcome is to deal with stalling during bank with flap.

[Crash one]

If we are in the game of stating the obvious, could I wade in and point out that configuration and speed are two different things.

In any given configuration, there are a range of speeds ay which the aeroplane may be flown.

G

Quite right Gengis.
I think there is too much "airline jargon" applied to light aircraft ops.
If you have a 2000 metre runway and a 172, then "configuration" is not required.
With my Emeraude and 600 metres in a 10 knot wind, close the throttle and land.
As for 1.3 X Vso that amounts to 52 knots, I've had full control at 45 and don't have to backtrack quite so far.

[scifi]

Hi Crash One... I don't see how the Approach speed has any connection with the distance of the Back-track. As long as you put the wheels on the tarmac, at the Piano Keys, at Vso, it doesn't matter two hoots what your speed was half a mile before.


There is one other anomaly, when we use the term 'speed over the fence'... It all depends upon where the fence is. For most of the airfields where I fly, the fence is 400 to 800 yards from the Threshold, plenty of space to loose many knots down to Vso. For pilots where the fence is at the threshold, they have to make some fiddle-factor adjustments.
.

[tescoapp]

scifi "speed over the fence" is another airline term which is to do with landing performance.

Airliners are not mean to land on the numbers. The touchdown point is at a set distance down the runway with a nominated angled path down to it. When you are on this path then when you go over the threshold you will be at a specified height. This is referred to as the fence.

For departure there are also fences for take off performance which depend on if the runway is wet or not.

I have not on purpose given any hard numbers for these "fences". Like the 1.3 VSo which is also a airline reference speed number it isn't relevant to SEP aircraft.

It doesn't have anything to do with a physical fence on the airfield.

[Pilot DAR]

As long as you put the wheels on the tarmac, at the Piano Keys, at Vso, it doesn't matter two hoots what your speed was half a mile before.

Speed awareness and control is a pretty important task for a fixed wing pilot, especially in more high performance aircraft. Yes, some aircraft could be safely slowed from excess speed a half mile back, in other types this would destabilize the approach to be unsafe.

I remember once, in very early days, landing a 182 on an 11,000 foot long runway. I allowed it to contact the ground much too fast (two hoots shortage on my part). What a bucking bronco ride that was! Now, for me, all tricycle type landings will be full or near stall at the time of surface contact.

My half mile back speed will be planned and executed. The place of landing and approach path may affect my decision, as well as the possibility (or reality) of engine failure, and the affect on other traffic of what could be a non standard approach.

On this landing, I was flying the approach to the knot, 1.1Vso, as I had only 40 more feet of runway length available than that required for the aircraft under those conditions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgn3N12rTTk

[Piper.Classique]

Interesting points of view here. I wonder how many of the posters have actually stalled their aircraft in the configuration of the day, as it were? Independent of this thread, I spent an hour yesterday in a homebuilt, investigating behaviour at the stall in different configurations.
No flight manual, we are about half way through a fifteen hour program intended to give us the information we need to write one. I'm flying at a fairly light weight, between full and half tanks, solo in a two seat aircraft. Probably fairly representative of the use it will get. It's interesting to reflect on all the different possibilities there are. At this weight, Clean power off, clean at different power settings (1700 rpm, 2100 rpm, and 2450 rpm) Flaps 15 power off, 1700 rpm, and 2100 rpm. I'm not intending to try 2450 with any flap, we've set a flap limit speed based on similar types, and don't really want to bust it. Then there is Flaps 30, all the above, turns at different angles of bank with and without flap and power.
Then do it all again at different weights. I suspect all the DGAC really want is clean and
full flaps, but I'm having fun.

The hard part so far has been getting decent enough weather. The first flights were done in march, then we had three weeks waiting for the rain to stop and the runway to dry out.

I think I could easily spend all fifteen hours in upper air work and enjoy doing it. The speeds are actually predictable, once the clean stalling speed at a given weight is established. What is interesting is the way the aircraft signals that it is unhappy, and what happens at the point of stall. It's making my flying a lot crisper, for sure.


Does anyone know an easy way to measure takeoff distance to 15 metres? We are supposed to come up with that, at some point. At MAUW. Runway surface and wind not specified, which seems to make it a bit pointless, to my mind.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Piper - I don't know what your relevant experience is, nor what you're testing - but DAR and I have both spent significant portions of our lives doing that sort of testing for a living. I'm certainly very happy to share what wisdom I have, and I've never known him to be unwilling to open up and share his experience either.

Here's one way of doing take-off and landing distances, although nowadays we'd mostly use recording GPS...

http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/2845/1/Gratton%20takeoff%20AeroJ%20final.pdf

If you want to email be at boffin at engineer dot com, I'd be happy to set up a 3-way email conversation.

G

[scifi]

Hi GtE, I wonder how you factor in height asl in those calculations ?

Our flying club had recently fitted a new propeller to a C152, so myself and my passenger took it out to see if we could find any performance increase. We climbed to about 10,000ft where we found it just ran out of lift.. 50ft/min was all it would do. Pull back on the stick and it would descend (-300 f/m.).. Push forward and it would descend, any angle of bank and it would descend..
Whether this could be called a stall I don't know, but there was only one stick position that would give us a climb.... The engine was leaned out for max rpm, which I think was about 2300 rpm. The Indicated airspeed was about 60 knots. At a rough guess we would have run out of fuel before it would climb another 1000ft.


.

[Crash one]

Hi Crash One... I don't see how the Approach speed has any connection with the distance of the Back-track. As long as you put the wheels on the tarmac, at the Piano Keys, at Vso, it doesn't matter two hoots what your speed was half a mile before.


There is one other anomaly, when we use the term 'speed over the fence'... It all depends upon where the fence is. For most of the airfields where I fly, the fence is 400 to 800 yards from the Threshold, plenty of space to loose many knots down to Vso. For pilots where the fence is at the threshold, they have to make some fiddle-factor adjustments.
.

I fly from a 600metre grass strip. There is no fence at the 24 end, just a footpath then a barley field. 06 has trees ~100metres short of the strip with a rough "grass" area between. I don't have a particular "threshold" speed other than controllably above the stall, approach speed is adjustable to suit the eyeballed rate of decent, radius of final turn, distance from threshold etc. If I can put it down very close (10metres in) to the threshold at 45knots I can get it stopped by 100metres in. If I go for 1.3Vso (52 knots) I'll end up at 250 metres in. I don't like using the brakes cos I don't have a safety wheel on the front and prefer to keep the prop out of the mud!

[Pilot DAR]

50ft/min was all it would do. Pull back on the stick and it would descend (-300 f/m.).. Push forward and it would descend, any angle of bank and it would descend..
Whether this could be called a stall I don't know, but there was only one stick position that would give us a climb

Yes, you ran out of a combination of lift and power (more of either, and you could have climbed more). You reached the service ceiling. If there were any stick position at which any climb was possible, the aircraft was not stalled yet. When you reached a higher altitude, and the stall horn was screaming to simply maintain altitude, you are near the absolute ceiling, and the stall. I have done this during flight testing in a Cessna 185 with a carburetted engine, on auto fuel. 20,800 feet. I could get to 21,000, but could not stay there, it would settle back stalled a few hundred feet. There are atmospheric corrections to reduce this to standard atmosphere if needed. If the service ceiling you obtained in the 152 with a new prop was 10,000 feet, I would not be very enamored of that prop.

[Piper.Classique]

Thank you G t E. I'll get an email off to you later today.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Hi GtE, I wonder how you factor in height asl in those calculations ?

Our flying club had recently fitted a new propeller to a C152, so myself and my passenger took it out to see if we could find any performance increase. We climbed to about 10,000ft where we found it just ran out of lift.. 50ft/min was all it would do. Pull back on the stick and it would descend (-300 f/m.).. Push forward and it would descend, any angle of bank and it would descend..
Whether this could be called a stall I don't know, but there was only one stick position that would give us a climb.... The engine was leaned out for max rpm, which I think was about 2300 rpm. The Indicated airspeed was about 60 knots. At a rough guess we would have run out of fuel before it would climb another 1000ft.


.

Let's get this straight?

You are trusted, with a passenger, to do an air test on a prop change and have excellent recall of numbers I'd have to look up in my post flight report, not to mention the relatively obscure concept of leaning for best power, but don't know about stalling in the landing configuration? I see why some people think you're a troll.

You clearly do have enough knowledge to look this stuff up in the same textbooks I've got on the shelf. Try this one... https://www.amazon.co.uk/INTRODUCTION-AIRCRAFT-PERFORMANCE-SELECTION-DESIGN/dp/8126530146 which has served me very well since I was an undergrad 30 years ago.

G

[alex90]

I think the issue here is knowing what the term means.... perhaps it just got lost in translation somewhere?

Landing configuration generally means, gear down, normal stage of flaps for landing, air brakes if fitted etc... NOT descending at x ft per min maintaining y kts, or z rpm!!

Its all about terminology. I am sure that the OP has done these, but perhpas under a different name.

[Piper.Classique]

The fence isn't, or doesn't have to be, a real fence. It's sometimes called screen height, and it's 15m high. If it was there it would be anyway. It's used in performance calculations. Take off consists of ground roll and an airborne sector. Would you believe to 15m?
Landing consists of an airborne sector which involves clearing a probably imaginary 15m fence, and touching down, followed by a ground roll. If you look in a flight manual for pretty much any light aircraft you should find all four of these distances given, and a factor to apply for different surfaces and wind conditions, altitude above sea level, and temperature.
Does that help?
Approach speed is also given, normally for MAUW. The takeoff and landing distances are calculated for the technique stated in the flight manual. Use something else and you are a test pilot.

[150 Driver]

I've come to this thread a bit late, but isn't the purpose of training to deal with a 'stall in the landing configuration' all to do with dealing with the aftermath of a mistake - which would be letting the speed decay away whilst close to landing. eg base to final turn or loss of concentration on final.

In other words you've set the plane up for landing (full flap, little or no power), you're less than a thousand feet above the ground, you f--k up, are you going to die or not ?

So by its very nature you're likely to be flying at 30, 40 or 50 knots. Testing this at 80 knots seems utterly pointless .

[Pontius]

Hi GtE, I wonder how you factor in height asl in those calculations ?

If only there was a term for such a measurement :hmm:

[Piper.Classique]

If only there was a term for such a measurement :hmm:

Tee Hee. Pontius, that was naughty.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Hi Crash One... I don't see how the Approach speed has any connection with the distance of the Back-track. As long as you put the wheels on the tarmac, at the Piano Keys, at Vso, it doesn't matter two hoots what your speed was half a mile before.


There is one other anomaly, when we use the term 'speed over the fence'... It all depends upon where the fence is. For most of the airfields where I fly, the fence is 400 to 800 yards from the Threshold, plenty of space to loose many knots down to Vso. For pilots where the fence is at the threshold, they have to make some fiddle-factor adjustments.
.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh: If you're not a troll you have a strong urge to become a statistic! Windshear? Engine failure on short final? insufficient braking action? A stable speed on finals gives a huge protection from all of the above. My day job involves stable approaches every time, as far as possible I do the same in my spare time. My aeroplane is a basic permit beast, but she's mine, she cost me good money and I like to protect her, me and anyone who flies with me.

SND

[Crash one]

Troll "simulated glide path" my ass!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Looking around his other posts, possibly a keen aero-modeller with a sim package on his pc. Probably a teenager, a lot of his posts are similar to CapA330.

SND

[funfly]

This is all getting a bit technical.
Surely all the person wanted to see was how you reacted to being too slow on finals, with all the inherent dangers.
What you actually call it is irrelevent, however its important that you recognise the situation if it happens and that you can handle it.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Surely all the person wanted to see was how you reacted to being too slow on finals, with all the inherent dangers.
Low and slow on final? - shove the nose down, instinctive reaction. (And also probably add some power.) Always pleases instructors, who seem to come across other behaviours from time to time?

[tescoapp]

Very common to hold the attitude and power out of it. Which is still being taught in the USA and all over Europe.

As its normally recovered from the none stalled, stall warning stage it works mainly because nobody is that great at holding an attitude. But there is also a possibility of the nose pitching even further up.

And its not just a SEP PPL thing, it goes all the way to type rated machines and pro pilots.

Stalling was done in type ratings but after that it wasn't given that much priority in training. In fact I don't think I did a stall for 10 years. EASA have now included it in the normal training cycle exercises along with upset training. So in a 3 year cycle you get 12 sim sessions and all the stalls are covered. The new pilots on there first SIMs after TR do revert back to SEP training and this causes quiet a few repeats. Habits formed in basic training are extremely hard to unlearn.

The other one which is seen a lot is full rudder to lift the wing in case of wing drop. Instead of rudder to stop yaw and aileron to bring the wing back to level. It really gets acrobatic when people use both aileron and rudder at full deflection to recover especially if the stick shaker then triggers they hammer the power leavers forward and then the over speed warner sounds. Then they lift the nose... In upset training you can have a 10 knot window between stall and over speed. Its thought that the common exercise of flying slow and using the rudder to keep the wings level and change the heading is root cause of this in Europe. USA until the airbus tail falling off just after 9/11 it was standard practise.

[Pilot DAR]

At the basic, the risk of a stall exists when the angle of attack is too high. The best way to reduce the risk of stall, is to reduce the AoA. If an aircraft manufacturer recommends powering out, that is theirs to do, but pilots should always remember basic principles.

[tescoapp]

No OEM that I am aware of recommends powering out.

It seems this powering out is pure pilot nonsense.

[Tankengine]

No OEM that I am aware of recommends powering out.

It seems this powering out is pure pilot nonsense.

Unless you are too low to lower the nose too far! ;)

[tescoapp]

Yep that's the logic of the pilot nonsense.

You can't unstall an aircraft without reducing angle of attack. You only have to lower it a degree for you to unstall.

Ga aircraft do not have the power to defeat the induced drag of a stalled aircraft. If your that low that your going to hit the deck with the nosewheel first if you reduce the attitude you might as well hold it as it is and accept the arrival. Aka a short field on the horn landing with no flare and cut the power on touchdown. I suppose that isn't taught any more.

So the excuse for powering out is based on a stall in the last 10 feet of the approach. It wouldn't work anyway on a stalled aircraft.

Which leads into the approach profile are they flat 3 degree and powered up or are they doing a sensible single engine approach steeper with less power.

The ones usually advocating powering out are usually the ones with + huge amounts of speed extra. It's probably linked with all the hassle with power outs and hanging in the air doing a tap dance on the rudder while the engine thrashes itself and nothing much happens until they actually fail holding the attitude and the plane unstalls itself despite their intentions.

[scifi]

A few of us Private Pilots got into flying via Gliding, and for every winch launch you have ever done you have to be very quick to lower the nose. At the end of the launch, when you are 1400ft agl, the glider has a nose-up attitude of about 25 degrees, The cable back-releases, as it is supposed to do. Then you simultaneously give the cable-release a precautionary two tugs, and lower the nose to below the horizon. It is only when you get to fly powered aircraft, that the application of power is also required.


If you fly anything larger, with tonnes of inertia, then that is a different problem, but after all this is the Private Flying Forum.
.

[Pilot DAR]

but after all this is the Private Flying Forum.

Absolutely!

It is only when you get to fly powered aircraft, that the application of power is also required.

The application of power is possible, not required. Yes, if you want a power plane to maintain altitude, or climb, you're going to need power. Otherwise, if you're prepared to accept a constant net descent as a part of your maneuvering, power is not required, fly it like a glider!

[tescoapp]

There is no difference between dealing with a stall be it a RC aircraft, glider, microlight, SEP,MEP, turboprop or Jet be it BAe 146 or a swept wing 747. (we won't get into super stalls with T tails)

All of the above will unstall without changing the power setting by reducing the AoA.

If a pilot is trained from the outset that Stalling has absolutely nothing to do with airspeed and is only a function of angle of attack then stall recovery is very simple logic.

If they think stalling is to do with airspeed then logically they want to apply power thinking they are going to increase it and stop descending.

I might add the airspeed theory was the first one for RAF pilots in WW1 and the procedure if the plane stalled was to put the power high and pull back on the stick as hard as you could. This was universally fatal. Then someone allowed the nose to drop either by accident or on purpose. They survived and then tried it again and survived. They went and told the powers that be what they had discovered and got Court Marshalled for disobeying flying instructions. By WW2 they had dumped the airspeed nonsense.

[mikehallam]

Interesting statements,

But without an A of A device I actually do watch the ASI like a hawk when slowing down and making turns from downwind to base & finals.
I usually improve my chances at these lower speed over stall margins by having a couple of flap stages too.

So in a real world "stall speed" is a truism.

mike hallam

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Interesting statements,

But without an A of A device I actually do watch the ASI like a hawk when slowing down and making turns from downwind to base & finals.
I usually improve my chances at these lower speed over stall margins by having a couple of flap stages too.

So in a real world "stall speed" is a truism.

mike hallam

A search through the AAIB reports shows a disproportionate number of low inertia, very low weight types stalling in the base to final turn. You’re spot on about watching the speed, especially at that point in the flight.

A stall and a wing drop at that moment will probably end your flying career.

SND

[Crash one]

A few of us Private Pilots got into flying via Gliding, and for every winch launch you have ever done you have to be very quick to lower the nose. At the end of the launch, when you are 1400ft agl, the glider has a nose-up attitude of about 25 degrees, The cable back-releases, as it is supposed to do. Then you simultaneously give the cable-release a precautionary two tugs, and lower the nose to below the horizon. It is only when you get to fly powered aircraft, that the application of power is also required.


If you fly anything larger, with tonnes of inertia, then that is a different problem, but after all this is the Private Flying Forum.
.

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this, but I was always taught, release before the thing back releases because otherwise you have passed the overhead the winch and if there is little or no wind you will drop a 1200ft pile of high tensile spaghetti all over the winch. So "as it is supposed to" is not correct! The back release mechanism is a safety device which will operate separately if the normal release cable doesn't work/is broken/jammed etc. Try having a close look at how the two seperate systems actually work!!
Also, as said, engine power is not required to unstall any aircraft.
Unfortunately not many light aircraft have an angle of attack indicator, so the only reference we have is the ASI, or the shoogly stick.

[tescoapp]

But without an A of A device

We are talking about VFR flight.

Every aircraft is fitted with an AoA device its called a window. instructors don't look across the cockpit to know your airspeed is off. We just look at the attitude.

There are also a huge number of collisions at that same point a trimmed aircraft will keep the same speed if the pilot doesn't annoy it. So if you attitude is set and your trimmed, the speed is going to be good. If the runway is going up in the screen you put some power on if its going down you take some off, if its staying in the same position you leave it alone.

So look out to me look out carries more priority. While doing the look out you have access to the aircrafts speed via the window and the attitude. Nose high your slow, nose low your fast.

Some of us made our students do circuits without any instruments at all and usually the student was spot on the speeds required and height all done by attitude and sound of the engine definitely more spot on and consistent than the ones that had got used to needle chasing.

[BackPacker]

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this, but I was always taught, release before the thing back releases because otherwise you have passed the overhead the winch and if there is little or no wind you will drop a 1200ft pile of high tensile spaghetti all over the winch.

I think there are three basic methods to this:
- Release at pilots discretion
- Release at the winch drivers discretion: The winch driver will release the tension on the cable. This can be felt in the airplane, so you release the cable
- Release by flying over the winch and let the safety mechanism do its work

Which method is used depends on the local culture. But it also depends on the prevailing wind direction and strength. With a strong headwind the chance that the cable drops on, or behind the winch is virtually nonexistent, so the winch driver can continue the launch until the aircraft releases itself through the safety mechanism - which is almost dead overhead the winch. OTOH with light winds, winds 90 degrees cross to the launch direction, or even with a slight tailwind (yes it happens), the winch driver needs to signal the pilot to release a lot earlier in order to avoid the 1200' spaghetti.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

A few of us Private Pilots got into flying via Gliding, and for every winch launch you have ever done you have to be very quick to lower the nose. At the end of the launch, when you are 1400ft agl, the glider has a nose-up attitude of about 25 degrees, The cable back-releases, as it is supposed to do. Then you simultaneously give the cable-release a precautionary two tugs, and lower the nose to below the horizon. It is only when you get to fly powered aircraft, that the application of power is also required.


If you fly anything larger, with tonnes of inertia, then that is a different problem, but after all this is the Private Flying Forum.
.

It is the Private Flying Forum, but a lot of us on here earn our living flying as well as it being a weekend relaxation for us, the day job aeroplane has tonnes of inertia, my weekend aeroplane definitely doesn’t, sometimes I get to do some gliding (my first flying love) and all three have one thing in common, drop the nose slightly when close to the stall and they all will fly away.

At the gliding club where I learned as a teenager they taught that the pilot should release, the gliding club where I get to spend not enough of my time take the same view, they see it as poor airmanship due to the lack of thought for the winch driver.

SND

[Piper.Classique]

Unless you are flying with a retrieve cable, as at the Long Mynd. Standard practice is to let the back release pull the cable off, after the main winch driver has cut the power.

[Jim59]

There is an interesting paper on this subject at:
Brunel University Research Archive: Evaluating a set of stall recovery actions for single engine light aeroplanes (http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/10015)
(The full docx report is downloadable from near the foot of the page referenced above.)

One type of aircraft did not recover from a stall using elevator alone - power was necessary.

The CAA technique is in "HANDLING SENSE LEAFLET 2: STALL/SPIN AWARENESS"
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ga_srg_09webHSL02.pdf

This paper considers four alternative sets of actions that a pilot may use to recover an aeroplane from the stall. These actions: Those published by the UK CAA and the US FAA, as well as a power delayed sequence and a pitch delayed sequence, were evaluated on 14 single engine piston aeroplane types. In a limited number of types (five in cruise configuration, two in landing configuration) the pitch delayed recovery gave a safe response and least height loss, but in a greater number of types (six and eight in cruise and landing configurations respectively) it resulted in further post-stall uncommanded motion. The other sets of actions all gave a consistent recovery from the stall, but the least height loss in recovery was also consistently the CAA sequence of simultaneous full power and nose-down pitching input, which normally resulted in approximately two thirds the height loss of the FAA's pitch first then power method, which in turn resulted in about 90% of the height loss of the trialled power delayed recovery. Additionally the CAA recovery gave the least variation in height loss during stall recovery. It was also found that all of the aeroplane types evaluated except for one microlight aeroplane of unusual design, displayed a pitch-up with increased power in the normal (pre-stall) flight regime. Reducing this to separate components it was therefore shown that pitch control is of primary importance and should be used to provide immediate stall recovery. The thrust control can additionally be used as early as possible to minimise height loss, but if the thrust control is used before the pitch control in the stall or post-stall flight regime, there is some risk of subsequent loss of control. Finally, from the discussion on stall recovery methods, questions for Regulatory Authorities are put forward that should address the current practices. © 2014 Royal Aeronautical Society.

[tescoapp]

nice study.

table 4 is particularly impressive with the delayed pitch

Severe right wing drop which may have been an incipient spin but recovered from this immediately the stick was moved forward

Yep that's what a tramahawk will do if you try and power out.

That really didn't surprise me but there were a few others that surprised me how much they bite if you do power first.

The BTW the aircraft that doesn't recover without power is a microlight with a high C of G push engine on the back and caniars doing pitch on the front. I will defer to those that know, but I suspect it wouldn't pass certification these days.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The Goldwing is pre Sections S, and has a whole bunch of stuff that wouldn't get approved these days. It was approved in the late 80s on the basis of grandfather rights and partial compliance with the airworthiness standard. It was used as part of the opening discussion, and not actually tested for the paper.

G

[tescoapp]

Was yourself involved?

It was a very well written study and also practical.

If any of the owners are reading that donated hours on aircraft... thank you very much they were not wasted at all.

The controllability post 1st stall is always an issue even in the works machine. When people do them both at the same time its a rare person that can control the pitch to just enough and not give it huge pitch changes. When they do the roller coaster starts. Thankfully at work they have standardised on the pitch pause power recovery. Just like I concluded worked the best teaching ppl years ago.

BTW I was taught the power out on my ppl but even at that stage it was pretty obvious it was nonsense and asking for trouble. I will admit I have some 900 hours teaching on PA38's which tends to focus an instructors mind on avoiding anything that's likely to throw you into a spin. And its stood me in good stead ever since. A calm 1-2-3 recovery looses less height and everything is back under control quicker than shoving both hands forward and then trying to sort the resulting dynamic situation out.

To note for the twin drivers. I have also be made to do single engine stalls in the sim to try and show that its a bad technique to slowly apply full power keeping the wings level and yaw under control. Yes I did loose loads of height.... but at least I didn't have a Vmca rollover like my colleague did doing it the way the TRE wanted it. I lost 600ft over 4 seconds he lost 3000ft in about 2 seconds and then we had to have a break because the sim went into a sulk.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I was involved, and it was a very interesting project. The paper won the Royal Aeronautical Society Bronze award as well.

G

[Sir Niall Dementia]

I was involved, and it was a very interesting project. The paper won the Royal Aeronautical Society Bronze award as well.

G
Cor Genghis;

An RAeS award to the people who did the work, not for amazing fakery flying a vintage biplane to nice places. It’ll never catch on 😜😜

SND

[funfly]

Unless you are flying with a retrieve cable, as at the Long Mynd. Standard practice is to let the back release pull the cable off, after the main winch driver has cut the power.
Never heard of this in my gliding days, always dropped the nose to release tension then pulled the knob (twice)
Twas a long time ago though, K13s in those days.

[Crash one]

That was what I was taught, drop the nose and release.
If you hung on too long the winch driver cut the power and the back release went, considered bad practice.
Also K13 days, when the pilot was trusted to control his own launch perhaps?

[Piper.Classique]

Yes, that's the case with only one cable, but the cable from the retrieve winch has quite a lot of drag, and as soon as the driver on the main winch cuts the power, the cable back releases, then both winch drivers wind cable in until the two cables (joined near to the cable parachute) land. Then the retrieve winch driver pulls the cable back to the launch point.
It's actually easier for everyone if the main winch driver controls the launch speed and release, and the pilot controls the attitude.
It's not quite the same as with a single cable. In that case the pilot normally releases the cable, after releasing the stick back pressure.
I did spend a season driving a winch with the retrieve system described, so have some slight idea how it works. I'm in current winch launch practice from the glider end, too.

[scifi]

I think we all now realise that each airplane may have a 'best recovery method', but back in my model flying days, I had a high wing model with dihedral, that would fly a very stabilised Dutch-Roll. I had to set about 80% power, hold the elevator way back, then it would fall off to the left, followed 2 seconds later by a fall off to the right, and would keep this R/L/R/L/R going for as long as I held the controls set... All without loosing any height, or deviating from a straight course.


The model was called a 'Jumper' and I don't think it was modeled on any full size aircraft.
It would be interesting to know if any 'spam can' needs no alteration of the controls at the first sign of a wing-drop.

Also from Model Gliding, I found out that the in-built pitch stability of the aircraft will get them out of most stall conditions. I would set the up-elevator trim so that the glider would just start to porpoise, without any inputs from me, indicating it was near its stall speed. Then I would add 3 or 4 clicks of down elevator, and the glider was then at the correct speed to go thermal chasing all on its own.
.

[Pilot DAR]

Scifi,

Models are an excellent way to get to learn about flying. However, it is necessary to understand that though the aircraft can be scaled up or down, air cannot. Consider that the propellers on your powered models probably turned at 8000 to 16,000 RPM, where the prop of a Cessna (for example) would turn no more than 2800 RPM. Similarly, the power to weight ratio of models is very different to full sized aircraft.

You might want to do some reading on "Reynolds number", and scaling. When you factor these together, the differences will become more understandable. If you do some reading about the Ercoupe, you'll find that its design tended toward the stall resistant characteristics you speak of with the models.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Agreeing with DAR, I'd nonetheless also comment that there have been a few aeroplanes at various scales with a continuous Dutch Roll in some modes of flight also. It is seldom very helpful - how big a problem it is varies with class and role.

You might also read up on the phugoid mode. A stall and self recovery is not the only reason for what you're describing as "porpoising".


G

[Crash one]

I once tried to suggest to an instructor that (Relatively) the air that a model flies in is denser than around a full size aircraft. The idea was poo pooed, "don't be stupid it's all the same air".
Another instructor described an event where he and another instructor took a T21 to several thousand ft and set up the phugoid stall/self recovery to see how far it would go.
The stall and recovery got progressively steeper until it suddenly bunted and flipped upside down. At which point they pulled to recover and rolled out right side up.
Not as safe an aircraft as was thought!

[Genghis the Engineer]

And that is what you get when people without the training and experience to do so, try to be test pilots!

G

[Crash one]

And that is what you get when people without the training and experience to do so, try to be test pilots!

G

Yes!......