SA 17yr old student crash

[BigEndBob]

Sad case.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8486591/Schoolgirl-pilot-dies-crashes-small-aircraft-day-17th-birthday-South-Africa.html

[Pilot DAR]

On her second solo flight with 24 hours of training.... What is the common number of hours of dual before going solo?

[capngrog]

Here in the U.S., I believe that it is usual to solo after 8-12 hours of dual. I don't know what the South African rules/laws are about hours required to solo, but 20+ hours of dual seems a lot to me. Long ago and far away, I soloed at just under 8 hours dual. Back during the Vietnam Era, U.S. military pilot trainees usually soloed at around 8 hours and were in danger of washing out of the program if they had not soloed after 12 hours of dual ... at least that's how I recall it.

Whatever happened here, it was an incredible tragedy for the young lady and her family. I just can't imagine. R.I.P.

Regards,
Grog

[B2N2]

What is the common number of hours of dual before going solo?

What are you insinuating?
That is a perfectly normal number.

I believe that it is usual to solo after 8-12 hours of dual.

No it’s not.
With a national average of 70-80 hrs for the Private pilot certificate the average solo is not 8-12 hrs.
As an instructor out of a moderately busy Class D my average was 18-19 hrs although we soloed them first at a non towered airport but their second solo was from the towered field.

We have a tragic accident here from a fledgeling aviator. Loss of life.
Let’s not take the low road.
Experienced aviators have fatal accidents too.
None of us are immune.

* The Cherokee 180 she is posing with is an old bird with likely only a stall warning light and no horn. Also a straight “Hershey bar” wing.
It was photographed in storage in 2006:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x534/image_933f6fff982260eb76c750b32b5c638c8cd23e7a.jpeg

In May 2019 the airplane had a ‘serious incident’ with a runway incursion.
Although rare a mechanical or structural failure can not be ruled out as the following accident illustrates:

https://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20190905/ntsb-final-report-metal-fatigue-caused-wing-to-snap-in-fatal-plane-crash

[Pilot DAR]

What are you insinuating?
That is a perfectly normal number.

I'm insinuating nothing, just curious. I'm not up on the norms of pre solo experience in the present time. My recollection of solo times when I learned to fly back the '70's is more like the 10 to 15 hours otherwise mentioned. As I waited to be old enough to go solo, I flew extra dual, waiting for my birthday to pass, I think I was at 13 hours to solo. Perhaps this student too achieved more hours while waiting for a birthday.

Yes, the condition of the airplane came to mi mind too. An investigation will know exactly what to look for in that. PA-28's are well understood...

Certainly, sadly, many very experienced pilots have accidents with great similarity to this one. Honestly (and very non sarcastically) I wonder how we old, early solo'ers, survived with how little we knew, before we were set loose. I remember clearly, decades later, my first solo in a helicopter, spending the first 15 minutes wondering if I had what it took - and that was with 7000 hours of fixed wing time already. I think I knew how little I actually knew about the helicopter. But, my instructor decided I was ready, and I had no surprises, so I guess he was right.

Yes, this is terribly sad, and can only add to every instructor's sense of importance to train in basic handling skills, and recognition of approach to loss of control...

[pilotmike]

On her second solo flight with 24 hours of training.... What is the common number of hours of dual before going solo?
When I learned in the 80s, it seemed to be generally around the 12-20ish mark, obviously depending on school and student aptitude. It seems to have become longer with a syllabus which appears to have expanded, if not in scope then certainly in detail.

As an instructor through the 90s and 2000s, I adopted a simple formula which was a good guide: 10 hours + 1/3rd of the age of the student. 18 year olds took around 15 hours, 40 year olds took around 20-25 and 65 year olds took 30+. 75+ year olds generally didn't have enough time left to progress that far. It was rough and ready, but always a good guide, and usually accurate, again depending on student aptitude.

Obviously there were exceptions, such as the 35 year old student whom I allowed to do the complete landing on a 1st trial flight. Exceptional. He just listened and did. He soloed in 10 hours, PPL in minimum hours and he quickly went on to be a very fine instructor. At the other extreme are the occasional students whom you've had to counsel that they might never gain a PPL, possibly not even a solo, without some significant changes.

The saddest for me was a 65 year old, who knew it all, was always telling anyone who'd listen that he was a good pilot and ready for solo but being held back, the only hindrance to their solo and licence was a mean instructor who clearly didn't recognise their talent and aviating prowess. However the ability and actions never matched the words and confidence. He chose a day when I was not instructing to take his pride and joy 2 seater out for a 'fast taxy' which evolved into a low hop, and from there a flight, from eye-witness accounts, climbing far too steeply (one of his perpetual habits which he would never accept any correction from me) which lasted a mere minute or so before a stall and incipient spin from 400' and crash back to Earth with fatal consequences. The CAA / AAIB enquiry was upsetting, for me and others, however my student records confirmed the picture of an over-confident student who believed they knew it all, and could not achieve any exercise reasonably well or safely. What their spouses / families don't fully realise in these cases is that it is often only the instructors judgement which keep these ones alive for them for them up to that point.

Always a tragedy when lives are lost in aviation.

[Pilot DAR]

Pilot Mike has given a well though out description of what I have also experienced in training. In particular, younger students seem to learn faster. Considering the accident of this discussion, a young and apparently eager student would be just the type of student who would inspire me to train them, that makes it extra sad.

I agree very much with Pilot Mike's assessment of older "type A" personality pilots. My instructing has been limited to advanced training and seaplane endorsements, both of which attract well off type A personalities (who can afford the planes). After a few scares, I am very much on guard for pilots who over estimate their abilities, or don't respond well to guidance. I now give fairly stern briefings as to what will be acceptable, and not. Maneuvering, and the risk of stall/spin figure centrally in my type training, as typically floatplanes and amphibians have higher wing loading, and more drag, so recognition of the impending conditions is extra important.

Young, eager students are my favourite, but as I do not do ab initio training, I don't get to fly with them very often (hence my question about solo times).

[BigEndBob]

I often found that half a persons age was a good guess to number of hours for solo, given favourable weather conditions. Too many crosswind days and lots of traffic might stretch out the hours to 1st solo. So someone 60 plus might take 30 hours or more.

[B2N2]

The age thing times half plus the time of day minus the zulu offset is utter and complete rubbish.
Its a combination of training intervals, Airspace and communications complexity and airplane performance and complexity.....and student aptitude and mechanical sympathy.

[megan]

Circumstances dictate time to solo. I was an airfield rat and given many opportunities prior to being legally old enough, six hours ten minutes to solo in a Chipmunk when of age. Joining the military it was 15.7 hours to solo, because the syllabus said the solo would be made on the thirteenth flight should there be no hiccups - failure on a trip, interruption due mechanical, weather etc 11.8 hours to solo a helicopter, the syllabus once again saying you went solo on the eleventh flight. Continuity is important as well, lengthy intervals between trips involves reviewing previously flown exercises. In my early civil days eight hours was the generally accepted norm at my club if you flew every weekend, a time when all students were ultra keen, the married men with families had pooled resources to work second jobs on the weekends digging septic pits to earn their flying money.

[Teddy Robinson]

I'm insinuating nothing, just curious. I'm not up on the norms of pre solo experience in the present time. My recollection of solo times when I learned to fly back the '70's is more like the 10 to 15 hours otherwise mentioned. As I waited to be old enough to go solo, I flew extra dual, waiting for my birthday to pass, I think I was at 13 hours to solo. Perhaps this student too achieved more hours while waiting for a birthday.

Yes, the condition of the airplane came to mi mind too. An investigation will know exactly what to look for in that. PA-28's are well understood...

Certainly, sadly, many very experienced pilots have accidents with great similarity to this one. Honestly (and very non sarcastically) I wonder how we old, early solo'ers, survived with how little we knew, before we were set loose. I remember clearly, decades later, my first solo in a helicopter, spending the first 15 minutes wondering if I had what it took - and that was with 7000 hours of fixed wing time already. I think I knew how little I actually knew about the helicopter. But, my instructor decided I was ready, and I had no surprises, so I guess he was right.

Yes, this is terribly sad, and can only add to every instructor's sense of importance to train in basic handling skills, and recognition of approach to loss of control...

Reflects my personal experience too: plenty of dual time waiting for my 17th birthday. I would have to dig out a very ancient log book, but would guess that there were 40 or so hours logged prior to solo, much it spent on cross countries and elements usually conducted post solo consolidation.
Subsequently as a QFI, a working average of 10-12 hours to solo would be a reasonable figure, some took longer, some took less, all of the variables mentioned: weather conditions, traffic density and so forth had to be taken into account, as well as mitigation for the fairly complex ATC / traffic situation at our airfield.
Once we had covered everything, and the student felt ready, that was the actual time to solo, not whatever figure in the log book.

Having sent more than my fair share of students solo, my heart goes out to her family (and instructor) all of whom must be devasted by this tragedy.

A terribly sad day.

Blue skies young lady.

[rusty sparrow]

'stall warning light and no horn. Also a straight “Hershey bar” wing'

I flew one about 30 years ago and remember that there wasn't a clean stall break, just a mushy flight and sloppy controls while losing 1000' fpm. The stall warning light was useless and there was not warning horn.

A very sad loss, too young.

[B2N2]

just a mushy flight and sloppy controls while losing 1000' fpm.

30 years ago when it was probably 7-10 years old.
Repairs, rebuilds, overhauls, CG change due to major repairs, flight control rigging....
These can all change the stalling behavior of an airplane.
I’ve got my share of instructing in old and bent beater aircraft.
Later..much later I realised some of the aircraft were not legally airworthy anymore no matter what was signed off by MX.
If the airplane stall behavior is no longer on par with the certification requirements then its no longer airworthy.
I always made sure my student would solo in the same tailnumber as their last training flight.
I would avoid certain airplanes for solo flight and only use them for dual cross countries.
I’ve flown aircraft that would drop a wing with very little or no warning.
Aircraft that would only spin in one direction no matter what.
This could have been a sloppy turn that may very well have had no consequences in another airplane of the same type or in the plane she was more familiar with.

[Pilot DAR]

If the airplane stall behavior is no longer on par with the certification requirements then its no longer airworthy.

Exactly!

I've done hundreds of maintenance check flights, and I always stall the plane a couple of times, before signing off on it. Trainers in particular must stall correctly, or I won't sign. If you're flying a trainer which does not stall and recover as it should, that's a snag, which requires rectification.

Though tread drift, I had occasion to flight test a 3 hour since new (so brand new) bushplane. I was flying it to assess an ski installation for approval. Stalls were a part of the assessment. No matter how carefully I entered the stall, the plane spun viciously. I landed, and reported the defect, suggesting that the plane should be returned to the manufacturer, to find out why it went 'round half a turn in a stall no matter what. The owner's pilot acknowledged this advice from me. A week or so later, prior to getting the plane back for the suggested conformity inspection, the same pilot stalled and spun after takeoff, killing himself and a passenger. My report played a role in the investigation. Other's of the same model plane were checked, and indeed, I flew another a month of so later, and it was a pussycat. It took more than a year to find the defect, but it was found, and no other non compliant planes were produced. It was found that the plane I had flown had not been stall checked on the type acceptance flight test. That pilot, sadly, died in a stall spin after takeoff of a different type a few years later.

Stall characteristics must be checked post any control/rigging maintenance!

[ehwatezedoing]

On her second solo flight with 24 hours of training.... What is the common number of hours of dual before going solo?
I would even add to your question what was the time frame between those 24hrs of training?

[B2N2]

I would even add to your question what was the time frame between those 24hrs of training?

From the young lady’s uniform I would think it is a fulltime academy type training facility.

[alfaman]

Back during the Vietnam Era, U.S. military pilot trainees usually soloed at around 8 hours and were in danger of washing out of the program if they had not soloed after 12 hours of dual ... at least that's how I recall it. I'm not sure stats from then are particularly relevant: war puts pressures on training systems to push the envelope to get numbers through, rather than focus on the appropriate training for the individual, particularity when there's a queue behind to take the training seat.

[capngrog]

I'm not sure stats from then are particularly relevant: war puts pressures on training systems to push the envelope to get numbers through, rather than focus on the appropriate training for the individual, particularity when there's a queue behind to take the training seat.

As you pointed out, military pilot training is intense and almost totally immersive, resulting in relatively low dual time flown prior to solo. Of course, as you also pointed out, there was no time to tailor training to the individual; it was both quantity and quality that counted, and those who were either unable or unwilling to conform got the boot. As to the relevance of the statistics I quoted, they were merely to show what had been done in the past and serve as a basis for my wondering why a student pilot would need 20+ hours of dual prior to the first solo flight. I was unaware that under present day training programs, it is not unusual for a student to amass more than 20 hours dual prior to going solo. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps there is just more to learn these days than in the "good old" days of the E-6B mechanical computer, VORs, paper charts etc.

Regards,
Grog

[megan]

war puts pressures on training systems to push the envelope to get numbers through, rather than focus on the appropriate training for the individual, particularity when there's a queue behind to take the training seat.Certainly wasn't evident in the USN, could not have been looked after better if they had tried.resulting in relatively low dual time flown prior to soloI don't call 15.7 hours to solo a T-34 as low dual time, you had continuity of training, flying every day, save for weekends, outstanding instructors, and you knew what the syllabus required for every flight. After 20 hours in the T-34 it took 10 hours dual before solo in the T-28, which could be argued as excessive, as it was just a T-34 with a lot more grunt. There were no short cuts, just professional training given at the hands of professionals, should you be struggling with particular areas extra flights were awarded, but there was a limit.

[tcasblue]

Exactly!

I've done hundreds of maintenance check flights, and I always stall the plane a couple of times, before signing off on it. Trainers in particular must stall correctly, or I won't sign. If you're flying a trainer which does not stall and recover as it should, that's a snag, which requires rectification.

Though tread drift, I had occasion to flight test a 3 hour since new (so brand new) bushplane. I was flying it to assess an ski installation for approval. Stalls were a part of the assessment. No matter how carefully I entered the stall, the plane spun viciously. I landed, and reported the defect, suggesting that the plane should be returned to the manufacturer, to find out why it went 'round half a turn in a stall no matter what. The owner's pilot acknowledged this advice from me. A week or so later, prior to getting the plane back for the suggested conformity inspection, the same pilot stalled and spun after takeoff, killing himself and a passenger. My report played a role in the investigation. Other's of the same model plane were checked, and indeed, I flew another a month of so later, and it was a pussycat. It took more than a year to find the defect, but it was found, and no other non compliant planes were produced. It was found that the plane I had flown had not been stall checked on the type acceptance flight test. That pilot, sadly, died in a stall spin after takeoff of a different type a few years later.

Stall characteristics must be checked post any control/rigging maintenance!

Any chance of letting us know what the defect was?

Thanks.

[Pilot DAR]

The defect in the bushplane was reported to me by an authoritative source as being a manufacturing process control shortcoming. The result was that the airfoil of certain wings differed from the intended design due to "hand assembly", rather than jigged assembly to assure accuracy. Though not good, this problem could have been prevented from "getting out into the world" by more thorough production flight testing, including thorough stall testing.

I thoroughly stall test any plane I'm asked to fly, which has been modified, or is fresh out of maintenance. The forgoing was not the only surprise I've had over the years, just the most extreme example.

[capngrog]

The "hand assembly" must have been grossly off to have affected the stall characteristics of the airplane ... unless the airplane wound up with a different airfoil section from one wing to the other. Could a rigging error, causing different angles of incidence from one wing to the other, have caused or exacerbated the vicious stall characteristics?

Regards,
Grog

[Pilot DAR]

unless the airplane wound up with a different airfoil section

That is what was explained to me after the construction processes for the planes were carefully evaluated by the authority. As I mentioned, two of the same model plane I flight tested, only a few serial numbers apart, had startlingly different stall characteristics.

[stevef]

There's no way of adjusting the wing incidence on a PA28, unlike the Cessna off-set aft bushing. The maintenance manual method of lifting a heavy wing was to extend the flap pushrod by a couple of turns until it flew right!

[jan99]

Not a flight instructor, but I have a suspicion.
Flying has two important aspects: the procedures and the physics. Not being very intimate with the second can kill you.
My suspicion is that regardless of flight time some pilots, while proficient at the procedures, do not have a good enough model of the physics of flight ingrained and present at all times.

[capngrog]

Not a flight instructor, but I have a suspicion.
Flying has two important aspects: the procedures and the physics. Not being very intimate with the second can kill you.
My suspicion is that regardless of flight time some pilots, while proficient at the procedures, do not have a good enough model of the physics of flight ingrained and present at all times.

I call it "A Feel For The Airplane" which cannot be achieved without an appreciation of the physics of flight, as you so appropriately pointed out. Of course, I should substitute "aircraft" for "airplane" since it also applies to helicopters and lighter-than-air.

Cheers,
Grog

[beamer]

I often find when training already licensed pilots to fly tailwheel aircraft for the first time, they lack an inherent feel for what the aircraft is telling them. They take some time to become pro-active rather than re-active to what the aeroplane is doing in a given manoeuvre.

[Tee Emm]

Could a rigging error, causing different angles of incidence from one wing to the other, have caused or exacerbated the vicious stall characteristics?
I once flew a Ceesna 152 from a flying school. At the time I was an instructor giving another instructor recurrent training as he had not flown for several months. I asked him to demonstrate a clean stall and recovery. He entered the stall smoothly and we were both taken completely by surprise when the aircraft dropped the left wing viciously to 60 degrees with the nose dropping to 30 degrees nose down. We lost 400 feet in the recovery. I had flown old military aircraft some with wing drop characteristics and was very experienced. But even then that Cessna 152 was one of the worst wing drop examples I had flown.

I took control and set up for another stall with full flap and 1500 RPM. Again,an equally sudden wing drop at the point of stall and by the time we recovered we had lost 600 ft and finished up 180 degrees from the original heading. There was no doubt the aircraft was un-airworthy and I reported the problem to the flying school as well as writing the defect in the aircraft maintenance document. The CFI stated he knew about the wing drop problem on that particular aircraft but was happy to accept the defect because he used it for PPL tests to test the students competency at recovering from a wing drop; this being a regulatory requirement for the PPL test.

Solo flying was not permitted by the flying school on that Cessna 152 because of the wing drop risk. The owner of the aircraft was a licenced aircraft mechanic who did his own maintenance. After I had recorded the wing drop defect in the maintenance document the owner signed off the aircraft as serviceable without rectification and it continued to be hired out.

Eventually action was taken by one disgruntled hirer to contact the Regulator as he was concerned the aircraft was being flown despite being demonstrably un-airworthy even though the maintenance document displayed a clean sheet devoid of defects. The Regulator sent an Examiner to test fly the aircraft. When the mechanic owner of the Cessna 152 realised a CAA Examiner had booked the aircraft for a test flight, he took the aircraft off line and re-rigged the wings before handing it over to the Examiner to test fly. The owner failed to tell the Examiner that he found the left wing to be grossly out of correct rigging and that he had now rectified the defect. The Examiner flew the aircraft testing the stall characteristics which by now were normal following the rectification by the owner. He reported to the Regulator that the Cessna 152 had no defects
Later, the disgruntled hirer who had experienced the severe wing drop was admonished by the Regulator and informed an Examiner would test him for his knowledge of recovery from a wing drop at the point of stall. The disgruntled hirer happened to be another experienced miliary pilot with thousands of flying hours and thus familiar with wing drop characteristics.

That Cessna 152 had been flown by many flying school instructors in the months before the first episode. While they were aware of its adverse stall characteristics through word of mouth, none would record the defect in the maintenance record for fear of job security. This is a common problem in general aviation operations. If any aircraft flown by students and instructors is found to have undesirable handling characteristics during stalling practice it becomes a flight safety issue. It becomes an airworthiness issue as well. Unless the pilot records the defect on the maintenance document as well as verbally to the operator, the next pilot to fly the aircraft could be in for an unpleasant surprise. There is also a moral obligation to report these sort of defects.

[ShyTorque]

Years ago, as a 17 year old student pilot on an RAF flying scholarship at Ipswich with Lonmet Aviation (that dates me a bit) I was allocated a 152 fresh out of major maintenance. I’d not flown it before and it was my last dual GH revision sortie prior to my final handling test, so it was a full profile, with the instructor there to hopefully sit on his hands and watch me trying my best.

As briefed, I did a standard stall entry from level flight. The aircraft markedly dropped its left wing, but it didn’t cause a major problem because I’d been taught how to deal with that.

We were also required to demonstrate and recover from a fully developed spin. I entered as per the previous stall and applied full left rudder at the buffet. The spin entry didn’t go like any other I’d seen. When it settled down, my instructor looked across at me and said “Have you noticed anything unusual”? “Yes”, said I, “We’re upside down”!

We were in an inverted spin and the prop then stopped.

My instructor asked what I was going to do to recover.....I replied that I’d better pull back rather than pushing forward on the yoke and he nodded! It recovered quite quickly as I remember and the engine restarted itself as we recovered from the descent.

I think the instructor was more shaken up by it than me, I knew no better I suppose. The aircraft was taken off line and it was found to have a difference in individual wing rigging when it had been put back together.

[Tee Emm]

Certification flight tests conducted by the manufacturer's test pilot include the maximum wing drop permitted by FAA rules is 15 degrees when conducting stall tests. This suggests that any flying school aircraft that exceeds this amount during practice stalls should be considered unairworthy until the defect is rectified.

[Pilot DAR]

Correct. When I fly certification test flights, or maintenance check flights, I will not sign off on a plane with a wing drop exceeding the certification standards. I would extend that any plane exhibiting too much wing drop should be rectified. To be honest, flying school airplanes are probably less the risk, as pilots intentionally stall them, so they're prepared to recover. It's the private airplanes, loaded up, and flown by pilots with little recent stall practice, which may bite worse when stalled.

[Maoraigh1]

"the maximum wing drop permitted by FAA rules is 15 degrees when conducting stall tests."
Seeking information. How is the 15° test done? After a wing repair and recover, last year ourJodel had a wing drop on stall which I described as "acceptable". I'll be doing the 2020 LAA Permit test tomorrow if the weather allows. Is it with immediate remedial action, or after a pause?

[Pilot DAR]

The actual wording of the requirement is:

(e) During the recovery part of the maneuver, it must be possible to prevent more than 15° of roll or yaw by the normal use of controls

So, if I can control the plane within that, I'm okay with it. If it's 20 degrees, and I have good control, I'm still okay with it. If it bites, and I feel that the control I have is not confident, even 15 degrees could seem questionable.

[Judd]

Pilot DAR. Question. Many years ago I was a QFI flying, among other types, RAAF Dakota aircraft. Practice stalls clean on the Dakota posed no problem. However in the approach configuration (full flap and approach power) in every case there was a sharp wing drop beyond 45 degrees and considerable altitude lost before full control was regained.

A former UK test pilot on Pprune made the point that if the stall was approached at one knot per second the wing should not have dropped unduly. While I recall we didn't reef the nose up to reach stall speed and the rate of speed decay was certainly faster than one knot per second nevertheless why would a savage wing drop occur with landing flap extended but not so in the clean configuration? Rate of speed decay was about the same clean or flap down but more than one knot per second.

The worst wing drop I ever experienced was not in a stall but at 200 ft after takeoff in a Dakota which was fitted with the usual rubber de-icing boots on the length of the wings. Just as the landing gear was retracting the starboard wing suddenly dropped without warning. Almost full aileron was required to level the wings along with some rudder. Weather was good with only light winds. A glance out of the pilots window revealed the deicing boot from the landing light out to the wing tip had split asunder and flapping everywhere. The loss of lift on that wing was marked.

The student in the left seat thought the starboard engine must have failed and tried to feather the propeller. Fortunately I was able to stop his hand as he reached for the feather button as engine instruments were normal.
I was concerned that using flaps for landing might produce more unexpected control difficulties so I elected to make a flapless landing As speed reduced during the flare and float the wing dropped and we touched down just as we ran out of aileron. An interesting experience.

[Pilot DAR]

I have no experience flying the piston DC-3, but did a lot of stall testing on the turbine DC-3. Is was flying with the company training pilot right seat, so was accompanied by very competent supervision. That airplane had a nasty wing drop as the indication of the stall (usually a left wing drop). I accidentally did a half turn incipient spin twice during this testing. I know that the turbine DC-3 has different wingtips than the piston version, so there may be a difference there. The DC-3, and thus turbine DC-3 have an airframe designed and certified before refinement of stall handling characteristics as we know them now. I believe that DC-3's wings do not have a washout twist, so the whole wing can stall at once, rather than progressively root to tip - so warning is less, effects are more, it's just the way is is for some much older types. I found that this plane also had unusual pitch control forces as it approached the stall, it's just the way that plane is, though I would not certify a newer plane which handled that way. Happily, the DC-3 is not a type for which approach to stall should be common, and training is usually pretty good for their pilots. If GA trainers handled similarly, the landscape would be littered with wrecks!

A CAR 3 or Part 23 GA plane can be assumed to have compliant stall handling if correctly rigged. Pilots of airplanes other than those would be wise to seek advice or training relative to the type concerned. Most are probably still fine, but some antique types can be "different".

[stevef]

Correct - there's no wing washout on the DC3/C47 and the swept outer wing obviously affects the stall characteristics but the not-unknown dirty configuration 'bite' is strange.
There's an interesting 1937 NACA DC3 stall investigation video on Youtube that's worth watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tvsKLuEar4

[megan]

Judd don't know about the RAAF but many civil operators had a requirement to only do wheelers, no three pointer attempts permitted, because of the stall roll off.

[white light]

After reading through this thread, my initial thoughts are to give up flying. As a future hirer, it seems from some of the thread answers, that any aircraft can have an incident which then impacts the standard stall recovery.

Thing is, we may never be imparted with the information as to which aircraft are affected.

Edited to say how sorry I feel for that young girl and her family. At 17, she should have had her whole life ahead of her

[B2N2]

After reading through this thread, my initial thoughts are to give up flying. As a future hirer, it seems from some of the thread answers, that any aircraft can have an incident which then impacts the standard stall recovery.

Thing is, we may never be imparted with the information as to which aircraft are affected.

This is why I am hesitant with a rental fleet of 30-40 year old aircraft.
Then again you should cover stalls during any sort of rental checkout and if you don’t like the behavior of that airplane you say so and rent another.
Apart from my little bit of fear mongering a stall is not something unexpected that just appears and jumps up to bite you in the behind.
During a normal flight profile you should never be close to a stall expect for about the last 5 inches before touch down.

[Pilot DAR]

Apart from my little bit of fear mongering a stall is not something unexpected that just appears and jumps up to bite you in the behind.
During a normal flight profile you should never be close to a stall expect for about the last 5 inches before touch down.

Entirely agreed.

Yes, if in doubt, you should stall the plane during your checkout. If this request causes concern, there is a much bigger problem!

At altitude, practice stalls of a GA plane should not be concerning. Of course, having practiced at altitude, if you are uncomfortable with the characteristics observed during your practice at altitude, don't stall it at low altitude - then report it to someone! A correctly maintained, certified GA plane will stall very gently, and forgivingly. So, the variable is, has that plane been well maintained? If you doubt that, there are more reasons than just stall handling to cause you concern. Otherwise, it is up to you to be proficient in stall recovery technique, and thereafter, stall avoidance. If you're not comfortable, ask for a checkout, and practice stalls!

[rnzoli]

After reading through this thread, my initial thoughts are to give up flying. As a future hirer, it seems from some of the thread answers, that any aircraft can have an incident which then impacts the standard stall recovery.
Thing is, we may never be imparted with the information as to which aircraft are affected.

The level of professionalism of current maintenance is the most important factor. You can have 10-15 year old training aircraft beaten to death already, or 40-60 year old, very neatly maintained.
Having a co-located maintenance organization with the rental fleet is a huge plus, because you can go to the mechanic and have a useful discussion on what you see on the aircraft, any suspicious things etc.
Edit: and the last line of defence is your walk-around, of course....don't take it lightly.