Minimum height for practice stall recovery in C172
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cooma
Age: 48
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have any of you jokers done a Low Level Endorsement?
I recall doing stall practice at 150ft during mine. After all, when we fly at work we are no higher, and sometimes lower than that, so we need to be able to deal with it. It is amazing how stalling so close to the ground hones your desire to conduct the perfect stall recovery!!!
I recall doing stall practice at 150ft during mine. After all, when we fly at work we are no higher, and sometimes lower than that, so we need to be able to deal with it. It is amazing how stalling so close to the ground hones your desire to conduct the perfect stall recovery!!!
fujii, that is only for the purposes of subregulation 1 which, from memory ...
should've read the reg rather than rely on memory, sorry.
should've read the reg rather than rely on memory, sorry.
Last edited by djpil; 8th Dec 2013 at 08:28. Reason: Correction
Excuse My Limited Aerobatic Experience
Avgas172
Quote:
an inverted spin
So you stalled the aeroplane inverted..... With forward stick and rudder applied?
Avgas172
Quote:
an inverted spin
So you stalled the aeroplane inverted..... With forward stick and rudder applied?
But Captain, I am far too polite to say so.
I pondered this muchly when teaching myself aeros in a C150 Aerobat. Even read Neil Williams book cover to cover
- before I figured out that you would have to work really hard to get an Aerobat in an inverted spin, if even possible, and even harder to keep it there.I did, however, teach myself snap rolls - with the aeroplane in one hand and the POH in the other. The first one went really well
- I only lost 1000' before I recovered from the inevitable spin and was left wondering what the hell just happened!! Fortunately I started my "lesson" at 9000'.Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 6th Dec 2013 at 13:23.
Folks,
Read what OldAkro says, then read it again, then read what OldAkro says.
Most of us who have been around the instructing business for a while have had "something interesting" happen.
If a DC-3/C-47 drops a wing in a stalling sequence, it will roll into a spin, recovery can take 5000'.
A Cessna 172 with some flap out and an aft C.of G doesn't need too much mishandling to roll on its back. I have personally had that happen twice, as I have always insisted, during a checkout (or in the days when endorsements were required, an endorsement) that the candidate fly the stalling sequences ( and please don't tell me "they are not required", if I am signing off a pilot, it will only be when I think he or she is competent) in a representative configuration ---- which is, in a C-172, for my money, loaded close to max. weight and close to the aft C.of G ---- ie: with the equivalent of four aboard and a few bags in the back, the equivalent of taking mum and the kids away for the weekend.
In a recently describe incident with a flying school a C-152 got into a flat spin, it took more than 2000' for the very experienced instructor to recover. Interestingly, nothing was found wrong with the rigging, the "why" was never established, but of the "what happened", there is no doubt.
TraumaHawks are famous for doing all sorts of unpredictable things.
Any of us who have flown what are now some wonderful old "vintage" aircraft, but were the flying school fleet of their day, didn't practice stalls, we practiced stalls and spin recovery. Anybody remember the taper wing DH Hornet Moth.
As for suggesting in a (very sniffy ) tone that stalls are required at low level for a low level rating, that is silly to suicidal, depending on the aircraft type --- or, in technical terms, very poor risk management --- please show me the CASA requirement for stall and recovery at 150', and I will show you another case of CASA gross incompetence.
Tootle pip!!
Read what OldAkro says, then read it again, then read what OldAkro says.
Most of us who have been around the instructing business for a while have had "something interesting" happen.
If a DC-3/C-47 drops a wing in a stalling sequence, it will roll into a spin, recovery can take 5000'.
A Cessna 172 with some flap out and an aft C.of G doesn't need too much mishandling to roll on its back. I have personally had that happen twice, as I have always insisted, during a checkout (or in the days when endorsements were required, an endorsement) that the candidate fly the stalling sequences ( and please don't tell me "they are not required", if I am signing off a pilot, it will only be when I think he or she is competent) in a representative configuration ---- which is, in a C-172, for my money, loaded close to max. weight and close to the aft C.of G ---- ie: with the equivalent of four aboard and a few bags in the back, the equivalent of taking mum and the kids away for the weekend.
In a recently describe incident with a flying school a C-152 got into a flat spin, it took more than 2000' for the very experienced instructor to recover. Interestingly, nothing was found wrong with the rigging, the "why" was never established, but of the "what happened", there is no doubt.
TraumaHawks are famous for doing all sorts of unpredictable things.
Any of us who have flown what are now some wonderful old "vintage" aircraft, but were the flying school fleet of their day, didn't practice stalls, we practiced stalls and spin recovery. Anybody remember the taper wing DH Hornet Moth.
As for suggesting in a (very sniffy ) tone that stalls are required at low level for a low level rating, that is silly to suicidal, depending on the aircraft type --- or, in technical terms, very poor risk management --- please show me the CASA requirement for stall and recovery at 150', and I will show you another case of CASA gross incompetence.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothing to do with us but two guys died off the end of our strip.
stalled a T18 with full flap.
I think no c of g problem.
aircraft had the original T18 wing with mediocre stall characteristics.
aircraft flipped on its back.
recovered upright but with both wings stalled.
ballistic fall to earth.
stall anywhere you like. we need fatal accident statistics to convince people that flying is dangerous. you too can help
stalled a T18 with full flap.
I think no c of g problem.
aircraft had the original T18 wing with mediocre stall characteristics.
aircraft flipped on its back.
recovered upright but with both wings stalled.
ballistic fall to earth.
stall anywhere you like. we need fatal accident statistics to convince people that flying is dangerous. you too can help
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stalling cannot be an aerobatic manoeuvre: let's put that myth to bed. Here are three reasons for it, although there are others.
Manufacturers: Many aircraft have something like "spinning and other aerobatic manoeuvres are prohibited" written as a limitation in the AFM or POH. But all aircraft can be stalled for training purposes, at an appropriate height.
CASA: Aerobatics cannot be conducted as PIC without being endorsed to perform upright spins. Yet pilots of all experience levels go out to practise stalling, without being endorsed for spinning.
Pilots: It's useful for type ratings (endorsements, whatever) to conduct stall recoveries at close to MTOW and an aft CG. None of us would conduct aerobatics under those circumstances in normal-category C of A aircraft, and the manufacturer would prohibit it anyway. Yet intentionally stalling in that configuration is fine, with an instructor.
"Unaccelerated stalls are not considered to be aerobatic manoeuvres, by manufacturers, by CASA, by pilots." Say that three times before bed, daily!
Not that I've any objection to the 3000' principle in modern aircraft for basic training. Let's just not confuse it with a Rule or a Limitation.
Manufacturers: Many aircraft have something like "spinning and other aerobatic manoeuvres are prohibited" written as a limitation in the AFM or POH. But all aircraft can be stalled for training purposes, at an appropriate height.
CASA: Aerobatics cannot be conducted as PIC without being endorsed to perform upright spins. Yet pilots of all experience levels go out to practise stalling, without being endorsed for spinning.
Pilots: It's useful for type ratings (endorsements, whatever) to conduct stall recoveries at close to MTOW and an aft CG. None of us would conduct aerobatics under those circumstances in normal-category C of A aircraft, and the manufacturer would prohibit it anyway. Yet intentionally stalling in that configuration is fine, with an instructor.
"Unaccelerated stalls are not considered to be aerobatic manoeuvres, by manufacturers, by CASA, by pilots." Say that three times before bed, daily!
Not that I've any objection to the 3000' principle in modern aircraft for basic training. Let's just not confuse it with a Rule or a Limitation.
Last edited by Oktas8; 6th Dec 2013 at 19:32.
The original question asked why flying schools directed stall practice to be conducted at a height to be recovered by 3000ft agl. It also asked whether this was a waste of a students money. Many posts here are debating whether a stall is an aerobatic manuevre and stalls can be conducted during low level aerobatics at 150ft. This is completely irrelevant to the initial question, once it's in an ops manual it is a rule.
If you believe nothing can go wrong with a level un-accellerated stall during basic training then you have not spent enough time instructing. There are many cases of stall training/practice going wrong and even from higher altitudes not being able to recover. This is the reason for the height stipulation. It's easy for a flying school to impose the same limits for aerobatics as for stalling as history has shown that these training sessions can turn into aerobatics very quickly.
There is a big difference between an experienced aerobatic pilot conducting precision manuevres and a student who can barely coordinate their arms and legs. Even the experienced aerobatic pilots get caught out and end up in the dirt all too often.
Here is an example of what a student can do;
During stall practice aircraft entered a slight wing drop to the left, student reacted with full right rudder initiating a spin to the right. This suprised the student so he locked up on the controls with full back-pressure and full right rudder, left aileron to try and stop it rolling. Next thing the instructor had to overpower the student from the controls and recover, this required around 2000ft. The instructor even had his foot in a position to stop over reaction but the students input was such that he overpowered the instructor initially.
If you believe nothing can go wrong with a level un-accellerated stall during basic training then you have not spent enough time instructing. There are many cases of stall training/practice going wrong and even from higher altitudes not being able to recover. This is the reason for the height stipulation. It's easy for a flying school to impose the same limits for aerobatics as for stalling as history has shown that these training sessions can turn into aerobatics very quickly.
There is a big difference between an experienced aerobatic pilot conducting precision manuevres and a student who can barely coordinate their arms and legs. Even the experienced aerobatic pilots get caught out and end up in the dirt all too often.
Here is an example of what a student can do;
During stall practice aircraft entered a slight wing drop to the left, student reacted with full right rudder initiating a spin to the right. This suprised the student so he locked up on the controls with full back-pressure and full right rudder, left aileron to try and stop it rolling. Next thing the instructor had to overpower the student from the controls and recover, this required around 2000ft. The instructor even had his foot in a position to stop over reaction but the students input was such that he overpowered the instructor initially.
Last edited by 43Inches; 6th Dec 2013 at 20:24.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3000' has historically been used as a minimum recovery height for abnormal flight, in many countries. I think it originated in pre-WW2 military flying training. As others have said above, in aircraft of an earlier era, 3000' really was barely enough to be safe - when aircraft would spin without hesitation for example. Nowadays I can think of some aircraft which also require more than 3000' to safely practise stalling.
Is 3000' excessive today? In some cases, yes. (I'm thinking of an aircraft which is highly spin resistant, a pilot with enough training to have ironed out basic errors, and a real need to be lower - not just "because I can"!) But in my experience, the pilots pushing for a lower height are the ones who should stay high, for human factors reasons. If you follow my meaning.
Anyway, a competent instructor will usually not have to waste time & money to get to 3000'. There are things to do on the way up and on the way down again.
Is 3000' excessive today? In some cases, yes. (I'm thinking of an aircraft which is highly spin resistant, a pilot with enough training to have ironed out basic errors, and a real need to be lower - not just "because I can"!) But in my experience, the pilots pushing for a lower height are the ones who should stay high, for human factors reasons. If you follow my meaning.
Anyway, a competent instructor will usually not have to waste time & money to get to 3000'. There are things to do on the way up and on the way down again.
Anyway, a competent instructor will usually not have to waste time & money to get to 3000'. There are things to do on the way up and on the way down again.
My point is still that CASA won't necessarily be rational or reasonable. Whatever definition you find of aerobatic, another conflicting one can be found. Its a very, very grey area. If CASA apply the same definition of aerobatic they did for John Quadrio and accept similar sketchy evidence, then the instructor will be looking for a new career.
Disgruntled resident filming from below and labelling it as dangerously low, or proud student posting a video clip on Youtube and we've got a party starting.
Read the Quadrio thread. CASA cannot be trusted to be reasonable. I'd regard climbing to 3,000 ft as cheap insurance.
Disgruntled resident filming from below and labelling it as dangerously low, or proud student posting a video clip on Youtube and we've got a party starting.
Read the Quadrio thread. CASA cannot be trusted to be reasonable. I'd regard climbing to 3,000 ft as cheap insurance.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3,000 ft is indeed cheap insurance. In a clean aircraft 4,500 ft is even better. After thousands of hours in a C210 I didn't think it held many surprises. Everyone has the occasional 'off ' day and I had one of those a couple of biennials ago. We were doing numerous power off stalls and the instructor was encouraging me to recover with less altitude loss each time. Must have had a bit of a fuel imbalance because each time the starboard wing dropped as it stalled and I was starting to apply left rudder the moment it stalled. We had been applying power as the nose fell below the horizon. On the last stall trying to achieve a really small height loss I got over enthusiastic. At the first indication of the stall I applied full left rudder and then unfortunately went to full noise too early while the aircraft was still partially stalled. What happened next took me completely by surprise.The aircraft flicked very suddenly to the left and found myself in a spiral dive looking straight down with the sea view 4,500feet below filling my windscreen. I've never felt acceleration like it. At 32 ft/second/second assisted by 300HP and a clean airframe left unattended we were about 10 seconds from the water. That's a lifetime for experienced aerobatic pilots but I'm not and I felt more disorientated than the last diehards to leave the Cairns ATC Xmas bash.
With calm words from the instructor ( an aerobatic pilot) all was sorted except my jocks.
The point I'm trying to make is that even docile types like C210s can bite if flown into unusual situations by hamfisted pilots and the more time you have before the earth riseth up to smite thee the better.
With calm words from the instructor ( an aerobatic pilot) all was sorted except my jocks.
The point I'm trying to make is that even docile types like C210s can bite if flown into unusual situations by hamfisted pilots and the more time you have before the earth riseth up to smite thee the better.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the T18 incident I mentioned one of the guys was a very highly regarded and very experienced instructor. they stalled at about a thousand feet during familiarisation training.
in the fatal prang at Sale the pilot was a qualified test pilot. it was just a low level stall.
in the prang at Aldinga the passenger had 29,000 hours. it was just a low level stall.
all 3 of those fatal accidents were the result of a simple stall occurring and none of the guys involved were novices.
you get complacent at your dire peril.
in the fatal prang at Sale the pilot was a qualified test pilot. it was just a low level stall.
in the prang at Aldinga the passenger had 29,000 hours. it was just a low level stall.
all 3 of those fatal accidents were the result of a simple stall occurring and none of the guys involved were novices.
you get complacent at your dire peril.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We were doing numerous power off stalls and the instructor was encouraging me to recover with less altitude loss each time.
But... There is very rarely any point in doing stalling over and over with this aim. In fact I can think of only two: low level endorsement work, and remedial for a student being lazy with attitude control.
No one crashes an aeroplane because they lost 50' instead of 20' in a stall recovery. People sadly do crash because they rush, and botch, a recovery.
I once accidentally stalled an aircraft at 250' in a full power steep turn.* How much height did I lose? Less than 250'. Saying anything else, I believe, misses the point of a stall recovery.
* Yes it was legal. Yes it was careless. No it hasn't happened since.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago I cadged a ride in a two place glider at BCS. After tow release around 1500 ft the instructor demonstrated stall recovery. He did the same thing while on the downwind leg also at 1500 agl. I then had a go and recovered within 50 feet and of course no engine.
I don't know about now, but in those days stalling in gliders at relatively low altitude was normal teaching
If flying schools will only teach stalling above 3000 ft then how come there is no problems with gliders which don't have props to aid stall recovery.
I don't know about now, but in those days stalling in gliders at relatively low altitude was normal teaching
If flying schools will only teach stalling above 3000 ft then how come there is no problems with gliders which don't have props to aid stall recovery.
Most gliders I've flown have fairly benign stalls and good low speed handling, as they are designed to spend most of their day in a steep bank close to the stall. You are also likely to lose a lot less height in each turn of an inadvertent spin than you would if you were in Rutan Around's C210, and without the variables of the power and flaps to consider, that inadvertent spin is less likely to occur in the first place. It's not really a comparable situation.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think props aid stall recovery?
...with just about no loss in height. it is a matter of timing.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im concerned about the number of aircraft that will enter a spin without a rapid Yawing component at the point of stall. 
and how does a burst of power pull you out of a stall? how does it lower the wings AOA?
and how does a burst of power pull you out of a stall? how does it lower the wings AOA?
