Stall Recovery

[Coconut84]

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?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

'It is written'.....

'Bold' pilot who try stall without sufficient altitude to safely recover....
Maybe Not live to grow 'old'......

It may well be an 'arbitary' figure, but then so may 2,000ft, or 2,500ft. or whatever.
This figure has been around for a loooong time - and I have forgotten any 'legal reference'.....

Others will no doubt supply words of greater wisdom...

I had student in the 'old days' who objected to the time consuming climb back up to 3,000ft following manoeuvres which involved some height loss.
I wonder where he is now...??

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Check the definition of 'aerobatic'. From memory it references a min speed (1.3vs??). Therefore, I think that means a 3000' minimum.

[27/09]

Check the definition of 'aerobatic'. From memory it references a min speed (1.3vs??).

Really, must be an Aussie definition. I fly briefly every day at 1.3 Vs in a non aerobatic aircraft.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

A 'basic' stall may not be considered as an aerobatic manoeuvre. But a stall may impend into a wing drop or an incipient spin. There for a sufficient height of 3000' is used as a safety precaution.

Well that's my understanding...

[Avgas172]

I have often wondered why some think that climbing to a given altitude is a waste of time, in my book it is still aviation and demands arguably more skill than cruising at a set altitude for hours on end to get to a point from which you shall return from whence you came ....

[Ixixly]

I think this sort of thing comes up because of peoples conceived notion of what an "Aerobatic" is, everyone thinks of it as a manoeuvre specifically used in an "Air Show", but CAR 1988 (Correct me if I'm wrong) defines it as:
"… manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its altitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed."
Now a stall is a manoeuvre that is performed intentionally and (usually) involves and abrupt change in attitude and/or possibly altitude, therefore it could certainly be classified as an "Aerobatic manoeuvre" therefore requiring the 3000ft.

But honestly that's only if you're splitting hairs and looking for a way to really try to justify the 3000ft recovering altitude, me personally I just think it's a good idea and don't see why not unless you're really worried about the extra few minutes to get to 3000ft in which case stop being so damned stingy!

I guess really everyone once upon a time thought "Well, if 3000ft is good enough for aerobatics it should be good enough for stalls then, let's go with that!" and so it became an un-written rule

[airwolf117]

At my old flying school it was 3000ft solo and 1500ft dual.

While it might not be a law, its just an accepted common practice for safety.

[djpil]

Reg 155 has this statement:

(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.

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 or there is and many of us don't understand it (Ixixly explains).

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.

Hopefully clarified with the CASRs coming in the fullness of time.

[Sunfish]

My demonstration when a student of a deliberate spin and recovery was in an aerobat. Stalls straight and level in anything else at 3000'' just in case of a messed up wing drop recovery and resulting spin - which has happened to a mate of mine.

[fujii]

A three poing landing in a tail dragger is also called a full stall landing. Landing is not an aerobatic manoeuvre although try to make it so.

[5-in-50]

There is NO CASA rule regarding the minimum altitude for stalling.

The only rule you'll find, will be in your company / club Ops Manual, if they state a standard that must be adopted by it's pilots / members.

These arbitary figures are handed down over generations and never questioned.

Here's another one:

It s**ts me to no end when a student is taught to conduct a 360 degree clearing turn at 30 degrees AoB, before then practicing a 45 degree AoB steep turn. As if conducting a 45 degrees AoB turn is somehow less safe and requires an entire orbit at slightly less AoB to mitigate risk.

A simple airspace clear procedure of looking out all around is sufficient, but people will just do what they were taught without thinking why.

And one more for good measure:

HASELL checks before steep turns. The Day VFR syllabus specifies that you should perform an 'airspace cleared' procedure before steep turns, not HASELL. But people do that one also, because that's what Instructors hand down between generations.

[BlatantLiar]

I do my stalls at 1ft when I'm landing in most aircraft. Hopefully I'm not breaking the law by doing an aerobatic manoeuvre below 1500 in my case. Do stalls at whatever height is within your own perceived limitations and dont let anyone else tell you otherwise.

[Dangly Bits]

There are only 2 heights to stall an Aeroplane from. 3500 feet or 3.5 feet!

[sheppey]

(quote) I guess really everyone once upon a time thought "Well, if 3000ft is good enough for aerobatics it should be good enough for stalls then, let's go with that!" and so it became an un-written rule (/quote)

That's probably close to the truth of the matter.

Keep in mind that climbing to above 3000 ft in order to recover by 3000 ft is a good money spinner for both the flying instructor and the flying school. Especially on a hot summer's day when the rate of climb is low. Even the RAA "require" stalling in a ultra light like a Jabiru be conducted to recover by 3000 ft. That is blatant stealing money from the student especially as LSA types not only hardly stall they just waffle and recover in less than 50 feet. Again a nice money spinner.

CASA rightly state that a stall is not an aerobatic manoeuvre. Interestingly, some gliders have a wing drop at the stall yet it is quite normal for glider pilots to carry out a stall and recovery at 1000 ft and they don't even have a prop slipstream to aid recovery.

The recovery by 3000 ft should be dependant on aircraft type. For example, it would be most unwise even for an experienced pilot to conduct a powered landing configuration stall and recovery in a DC3 under 5000 ft. This because of the strong possibility of a vicious wing drop on that type. . Remember certification standards of those wartime types were less stringent than now. It can lead to an incipient spin in a DC3. Been there-done that on countless occasions as an instructor on the type.

Someone mentioned one operator had a company rule saying stall recovery to be made by 3000 ft if solo but 1500 ft if dual. Presumably talking about Cessna and similar types. Well, assuming the solo student has been signed and certified as competent to recover from stalls before first solo, if he wasn't competent to recover from stalls within stated height loss, then the instructor would not have sent him on his first solo. But to split the height between 3000 ft solo and 1500 ft dual is illogical. Either the student is competent or he isn't.

The long held 3000 ft stalling minimum practice height has been a flying school/instructor con for decades. But it makes money and that is the main reason why flying schools and their instructors still trot out varying reasons for its retention. Isn't it quite a coincidence that it is also the minimum height for aerobatics recovery?

[Sunfish]

Sheppy, I don't believe the 3000 ft. height recommendation is just a money spinner, it is there to provide a buffer for serious mishandling of a recovery resulting in a spin.

I am aware of Two events that resulted in spins, one inverted, caused by mishandling during endorsements where the aircraft lost a lot more than 1000 ft.

I am also aware of an endorsement in a Sportstar that went slightly pear shaped. It started with the instructor saying: " This little aircraft won't really stall, it just mushes down, watch this......." which turned out to be reasoably exciting, for when a dropped wing was picked up, it immediately dropped the other one, and so on.......and we weren't at 3000 ft either!

[Sop_Monkey]

Not sure where the 1.3 vs comes in here. You could only have 20 knots on the ASI and not stall if the wings are unloaded in a negative g maneuver.

[43Inches]

Sheppy, I don't believe the 3000 ft. height recommendation is just a money spinner, it is there to provide a buffer for serious mishandling of a recovery resulting in a spin.

I am aware of Two events that resulted in spins, one inverted, caused by mishandling during endorsements where the aircraft lost a lot more than 1000 ft.

I know of one 152 student lock up where the aircraft lost 2500ft before the instructor knocked out the student. I've seen 152s and PA28s lose over 1000ft in stalls where the student mishandles the situation. The closer to the ground you are the more likely a student will freeze on the controls when they notice the ground rushing up at them. If you havn't seen this then you do not have a lot of time instructing or you are not really practising stalling.

Don't forget that the closer to the ground you are the more likely the stall may be affected by wind shear or turbulence leading to more likely event of an excursion.

The flying training orgs I've worked for have mostly been trying to cut the cost of training times to be competitive. The minimum 3000ft for stalling was always viewed as a safety margin. It also allows you to let the students stuff up and get to the point you have to recover and show them their error of technique.

If the stalling is conducted as part of basic training you should be revising procedures during the climbs and descent so as not to waste the time.

[Howard Hughes]

Recently completed a turbo prop sim re-currency in the US. Stalls are now done as 'scenario based', different configurations, distractions (head down doing paperwork, multiple ATC clearance changes, etc...), including one at 200 feet on approach. I found this type of stalling far more beneficial than anything I had done in an aircraft at 3000/5000 feet.

[43Inches]

Recently completed a turbo prop sim re-currency in the US. Stalls are now done as 'scenario based', different configurations, distractions (head down doing paperwork, multiple ATC clearance changes, etc...), including one at 200 feet on approach. I found this type of stalling far more beneficial than anything I had done in an aircraft at 3000/5000 feet.

This is what a simulator should be used for. Even the aircraft based stalling lesson should be based on possible scenarios after the basics are done. Especially around landing stuff ups where the nose is too high, high drag after a bounce or balloon, or results of tightening the turn to final at too low a speed. These are not things you would want to practice at low altitude in the real aircraft with low experience pilots. The whole point of these exercises is basically a warning to stay away from these scenarios as they can bite hard.