Stall Recovery
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2014
Location: australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall Recovery
Hi Everybody, I've looked in CAR & CAAP and I've established the fact that CASA does not have any published minimas for stall recovery. Although the CAAP does touch on Aerobatic manoeuvres to be recovered above 3000', a basic stall isn't considered an aerobatic manoeuvre. Can anybody help me out in answering; why every flying college in Australia have adopted this arbitrary 3000' figure in which to recover from a stall. Is it written in something somewhere?
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I fly, our training area ceiling is 3500, which we tend to keep away from because its a pretty busy airspace above (final approach for commercial flights). Our stall training is done at 3000 and our airwork call states not below 2000. Of course in practice, the instructors expect you to recover in about 200 tops, preferably 100.
The only other rule I am aware of is stall training cannot be done over populated areas (not sure about the CAR), so provided you have recovered by 500 (not that I would like to try it that low) and are straight and level I guess that would be the minimum?
The only other rule I am aware of is stall training cannot be done over populated areas (not sure about the CAR), so provided you have recovered by 500 (not that I would like to try it that low) and are straight and level I guess that would be the minimum?
Reg 155 has this statement:
So, my opinion is therefore that such stalls do not need to be performed only in day VFR in an aerobatic aeroplane.
I don't see a reason to have subregulation (2) at all unless somewhere there is a rule stating that such stalls are aerobatics - perhaps there was and it no longer exists.
Subregulation (2) excludes sub (1) but not sub (3) indicating that subregulation (3) applies to those stalls i.e. a minimum height of 3,000 ft.
Who knows!
************ (2) * For the purposes of subregulation*(1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.
I don't see a reason to have subregulation (2) at all unless somewhere there is a rule stating that such stalls are aerobatics - perhaps there was and it no longer exists.
Subregulation (2) excludes sub (1) but not sub (3) indicating that subregulation (3) applies to those stalls i.e. a minimum height of 3,000 ft.
Who knows!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi coconut84,
I was told in my early flying days, when doing my flight instructor rating, that that the reason for the 3,000 foot floor was due to the possibility of an inadvertent spin entry. Anything lower than 3,000 feet would not necessarily allow the pilot(s) to recover. Incidentally, it's not only an Australian thing...I've seen it in New Zealand, Canada and the United States. I've also seen 5,000 feet (AGL) as the floor, so I guess it depends who was taught what.
Now, I have had a couple times sitting beside a student where stall practice ended up turning into the spin lesson. I can count the number of times on one hand, but it does happen, so I guess having a higher limit makes sense.
I was told in my early flying days, when doing my flight instructor rating, that that the reason for the 3,000 foot floor was due to the possibility of an inadvertent spin entry. Anything lower than 3,000 feet would not necessarily allow the pilot(s) to recover. Incidentally, it's not only an Australian thing...I've seen it in New Zealand, Canada and the United States. I've also seen 5,000 feet (AGL) as the floor, so I guess it depends who was taught what.
Now, I have had a couple times sitting beside a student where stall practice ended up turning into the spin lesson. I can count the number of times on one hand, but it does happen, so I guess having a higher limit makes sense.
Any instructor who can't prevent the aircraft from entering a spin if the student screws up should not be in the airplane. When I teach the instructor rating recovering from botched stalls is part of the training.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't try it with a tommy below 4000.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It takes a lot of height to get one out of a spin although they are lovely aircraft. As always know your aircraft and personal limitations rather than just accepting what some other bloke says.
Read the POH.
Read the POH.
I did a formal evaluation of stalling and recoveries (both correctly and incorrectly flown) in a Tomahawk not long ago. Looking at my notes I got the following
Landing flaps, 30 degrees bank, approach power
====================================
CAA recovery technique (simultaneous pitch and power):90ft height loss, fully controllable.
FAA recovery technique (pitch, then power once wing unstalled): 200ft height loss, rolled 45 degrees left at point of stall, but fully recoverable once stick moved forward.
Stick forward, 2 second delay then full power: 240ft height loss, fully controllable
Full power, 2 second delay, stick forward. Dropped wing to about 90 degrees, did not pursue the manoeuvre further.
Flaps up, idle
==========
CAA Recovery - 180 ft height loss, fully controllable
FAA recovery - 250 ft height loss, fully controllable
Power delayed - 190ft height loss, fully controllable
Power first - Incipient spin with minimal warning.
An experienced pilot on type can certainly improve upon all of these numbers, but it was all being done very precisely to a test schedule. [For the record, at a mid-fwd CG condition, and about 87% of MTOW.]
I'd summarise all of this by saying that there's nothing particularly wrong with the Tomahawk, but it's less tolerant of mishandling than many types.
I'm sorry to say that I've never spun a Tommie - partly because I've never had occasion to, and partly because I have a moral objection to spinning anything that I can't have a parachute and jettisonable door.
G
Landing flaps, 30 degrees bank, approach power
====================================
CAA recovery technique (simultaneous pitch and power):90ft height loss, fully controllable.
FAA recovery technique (pitch, then power once wing unstalled): 200ft height loss, rolled 45 degrees left at point of stall, but fully recoverable once stick moved forward.
Stick forward, 2 second delay then full power: 240ft height loss, fully controllable
Full power, 2 second delay, stick forward. Dropped wing to about 90 degrees, did not pursue the manoeuvre further.
Flaps up, idle
==========
CAA Recovery - 180 ft height loss, fully controllable
FAA recovery - 250 ft height loss, fully controllable
Power delayed - 190ft height loss, fully controllable
Power first - Incipient spin with minimal warning.
An experienced pilot on type can certainly improve upon all of these numbers, but it was all being done very precisely to a test schedule. [For the record, at a mid-fwd CG condition, and about 87% of MTOW.]
I'd summarise all of this by saying that there's nothing particularly wrong with the Tomahawk, but it's less tolerant of mishandling than many types.
I'm sorry to say that I've never spun a Tommie - partly because I've never had occasion to, and partly because I have a moral objection to spinning anything that I can't have a parachute and jettisonable door.
G
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wholeheartedly agree BPF. That is more than enough altitude for the instructor to recover, especially considering they should be expecting it to happen.
However, I guess I could have added that the instructor is not always there. At some point, the student does have to go practice solo stalls. In that case, something under 3,000 feet may not be enough altitude for the average PPL candidate to recover from an inadvertent spin entry...at least, during the early stages.
Now...a commercial or flight instructor candidate, on the other hand, is a different story. I never stayed instructing long enough to teach the instructor rating, but I'm glad to see that spin entry is still taught...I heard a nasty rumour TC had taken it out of the syllabus for the PPL and was demonstration only for the CPL...
However, I guess I could have added that the instructor is not always there. At some point, the student does have to go practice solo stalls. In that case, something under 3,000 feet may not be enough altitude for the average PPL candidate to recover from an inadvertent spin entry...at least, during the early stages.
Now...a commercial or flight instructor candidate, on the other hand, is a different story. I never stayed instructing long enough to teach the instructor rating, but I'm glad to see that spin entry is still taught...I heard a nasty rumour TC had taken it out of the syllabus for the PPL and was demonstration only for the CPL...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't try it with a tommy below 4000
Not my favourite aircraft but it really does not have some of the problems some try to tar it with. I would say MOST average low hour PPLs should not be practicing stalling below 3,000' solo in any aircraft, but anyone with a decent amount of experience who is up to speed with stall recoveries should not have a problem.
Last edited by foxmoth; 15th May 2014 at 19:28.
Not got it to hand but I believe the amendment to the PA38 Flight Manual states that stalls should be entered at an altitude to recover by 4,000 AGL. (Spins would require a higher entry height depending on number of turns etc).
Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs but assuming QNH set one would also have to be aware of terrain elevation. EG terrain 400 ft amsl, height loss 300 ft would mean a minimum entry altitude of 4,700 ft QNH.
NB Am not saying I personally agree with the amendment which I see more as a legal evaluation after a spinning accident in the UK a little while ago.
Not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs but assuming QNH set one would also have to be aware of terrain elevation. EG terrain 400 ft amsl, height loss 300 ft would mean a minimum entry altitude of 4,700 ft QNH.
NB Am not saying I personally agree with the amendment which I see more as a legal evaluation after a spinning accident in the UK a little while ago.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's rubbish, I'm not saying the aircraft is bad by any means I am merely pointing out the limitations in the POH and that the aircraft has some particular handling characteristics that MUST be understood prior to attempting these manoeuvres.
Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.
Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.
Fair point, well made.
I think it *should* be in the CPL syllabus, and properly explained and practiced, not just the quick "show and tell" that was certainly in my instructor course - although I still agree with it being removed from the PPL syllabus. Whilst people do for understandable reasons get worked up on the subject, historical data does support the assertion that more people were killed by practicing it, than saved by knowing it.
But that is perhaps a debate for a different thread.
G
I think it *should* be in the CPL syllabus, and properly explained and practiced, not just the quick "show and tell" that was certainly in my instructor course - although I still agree with it being removed from the PPL syllabus. Whilst people do for understandable reasons get worked up on the subject, historical data does support the assertion that more people were killed by practicing it, than saved by knowing it.
But that is perhaps a debate for a different thread.
G
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's rubbish, I'm not saying the aircraft is bad by any means I am merely pointing out the limitations in the POH and that the aircraft has some particular handling characteristics that MUST be understood prior to attempting these manoeuvres.
Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.
Respect the limits in the POH they are there for a reason.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My house
Posts: 1,339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I didn't word it very well. I blame earlies.
I like the aircraft, and I certainly don't believe that it deserves the nickname it has received however it does have some unusual tendencies for a training aircraft and history has shown that pilots and instructors have got it wrong.
Get into a fully developed spin without sufficient height and it's curtains, as with all aircraft.
I like the aircraft, and I certainly don't believe that it deserves the nickname it has received however it does have some unusual tendencies for a training aircraft and history has shown that pilots and instructors have got it wrong.
Get into a fully developed spin without sufficient height and it's curtains, as with all aircraft.