Stalling - Help & Advice
I never had any of my students ever say they were " afraid " of stalling. However I ease them into the stall. They first will have had a good look at slow flight and the first stalls are simple power off straight ahead stalls which are pretty benign. What I want them to work on is the instinctive reaction to the stall with the wheel going forward, the power coming up and any yaw cancelled with the rudder.
When they get confident with that then we start with landing configuration and then move on to power on stalls and finally climbing turn stalls. But my message is consistent.
There is no time when you want the aircraft to stall so if it stalls you screwed up up. Yes you need to have to be able to recover from the stall but more important is to recognize the situations which are leading to a possible stall and do something to recover before the airplane stalls. Since most light aircraft inadvertent stalls start with the an undetected entry into slow flight, understanding what the aircraft feels like when it starts to get too slow is IMO one of the most important foundations skills. The best way to do this is IMO is to practice slow flight with the airspeed indicator covered up.
I think a big problem is that too many instructors scare students by either making the stall sound scarier then it is or do some accelerated aggressive stall on the first lesson.
I have a Canadian aerobatic instructor rating and strongly encourage PPL's to do an introductory aerobatic course to properly learn how to control the aircraft regardless of its attitude or orientation, but the purpose of the PPL should first and foremost be to teach the skills and knowledge to recognize and avoid the conditions that will likely lead to a loss of control.
When they get confident with that then we start with landing configuration and then move on to power on stalls and finally climbing turn stalls. But my message is consistent.
There is no time when you want the aircraft to stall so if it stalls you screwed up up. Yes you need to have to be able to recover from the stall but more important is to recognize the situations which are leading to a possible stall and do something to recover before the airplane stalls. Since most light aircraft inadvertent stalls start with the an undetected entry into slow flight, understanding what the aircraft feels like when it starts to get too slow is IMO one of the most important foundations skills. The best way to do this is IMO is to practice slow flight with the airspeed indicator covered up.
I think a big problem is that too many instructors scare students by either making the stall sound scarier then it is or do some accelerated aggressive stall on the first lesson.
I have a Canadian aerobatic instructor rating and strongly encourage PPL's to do an introductory aerobatic course to properly learn how to control the aircraft regardless of its attitude or orientation, but the purpose of the PPL should first and foremost be to teach the skills and knowledge to recognize and avoid the conditions that will likely lead to a loss of control.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 4th Aug 2012 at 23:07.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
Your format for teaching stalls is excellent as posted above as well as teaching to identify an impending stall and stopping it developing into a full stall.
Sadly and this is where I am concerned with teaching to recovery at incipient is the fact that in accident situations the aircraft goes beyond incipient.
The pilot is so distracted as in very poor vis turn to final that he fails to watch airspeed and increases bank to get the centreline.
In that situation the pilot may miss indications of an impending stall and find that the first he realises is the fact that the aircraft has fully stalled.
Hence while being taught to identify early indications is very important so is recovery from a full stall with minimal height loss.
The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)
It is when the pilot looses the plot that he looses the aircraft hence why beyond incipient is so important yet not given enough importance nowadays
Pace
Your format for teaching stalls is excellent as posted above as well as teaching to identify an impending stall and stopping it developing into a full stall.
Sadly and this is where I am concerned with teaching to recovery at incipient is the fact that in accident situations the aircraft goes beyond incipient.
The pilot is so distracted as in very poor vis turn to final that he fails to watch airspeed and increases bank to get the centreline.
In that situation the pilot may miss indications of an impending stall and find that the first he realises is the fact that the aircraft has fully stalled.
Hence while being taught to identify early indications is very important so is recovery from a full stall with minimal height loss.
The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)
It is when the pilot looses the plot that he looses the aircraft hence why beyond incipient is so important yet not given enough importance nowadays
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 4th Aug 2012 at 23:51.
NOT a PA28, C150, Thruster T600, Pegasus Quantum.... .... all of which to my certain knowledge were not tested or stressed for such a manoeuver, but all of which have been used by halfwitted instructors to demonstrate it.
As for needing an aerobatic aircraft... this is a strictly 1G manoeuvre. If you get it badly wrong it becomes the very beginning of an incipient spin, but instantly corrected by releasing the stick/yoke. I'm NOT suggesting that pre-PPL pilots go out and do this on their own, but with an instructor who is comfortable with it (including recovery from a botched one). My 182 flies it like a pussy cat, you barely need to touch the pedals. Generally, it's a great demonstration that a stall is NOT instant death, that in fact a plane can be flown stably in a stall right down to flare altitude. (Apparently A330s fly it very nicely too, though that's probably not the best aircraft to try it in).
I guess this is the UK "not in front of the children" mentality. But anything which makes pilots more comfortable in case they find themselves in odd situations is a good idea.
Last edited by n5296s; 5th Aug 2012 at 00:51.
BPF
The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)
The same goes for a full spin! It is important that a pilot knows when an aircraft is in a spin and in a spiral dive as recovery methods are very different yet a pilot untrained in recovery from either cannot be expected to identify or recover from either or even identify an aircraft changing from a spin into a spiral dive (the recent PC12 crash)
The solution to spin accidents is to develop the automatic reaction to a stall of stick forward, full power, rudder as required to stop the aircraft from yawing. If that automatic reaction is there then the aircraft can not spin.
The accident record is clear. Most stall spin accidents occur at a altitude that is so low successful recovery is unlikely. Stall recognition and avoidance is what is going to save lives, not teaching PPL's how to recover from a fully developed spin which is by definition an aerobatic manoever.
As for your comment on the PC 12 accident. Anybody flying a 4 Million dollar high performance aircraft should IMO opinion have undergone formal upset training. Again the focus of all the upset training I have seen is early recognition of the upset and the most effective methods of returning the aircraft to controlled flight. I have not seen one of these programs that lets the aircraft get into a fully developed spin before starting a recovery. In any case the ultimate cause of the PC 12 crash was not the inability to recover from a spin it was extremely poor decision making by the pilot when manoevering around convective weather.
I will end on a point I have often repeated. Want to learn about spins?? Don't do it in a spam can with a regular hours building instructor, take an introductory aerobatics course with a properly trained aerobatics instructor in an aerobatic airplane. Not only is it great fun but you will learn how to control the aircraft no matter what its orientation or attitude.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 5th Aug 2012 at 01:31.
I'm at a loss to see how the regulators failing to enforce spins during training, or failing to ensure that instructors are up to muster can be described as 'nannying' - quite the opposite.
There's no law against finding yourself a good instructor and going out to do some spins now, any more than there was when you trained. It's up to the individual, and I recently organised some spin training for myself, albeit for fun rather than because I believed (or believe) it made me a safer pilot.
Effectively what you're describing is 'deregulation', not 'nannying'.
I agree that your average instructor is likely to be less current at spins these days, than your instructor was back in 19??, but the move against mandatory spin training came from US statistics showing that quite a lot of instructors weren't up to spinning safely either, even back in the day.
There's no law against finding yourself a good instructor and going out to do some spins now, any more than there was when you trained. It's up to the individual, and I recently organised some spin training for myself, albeit for fun rather than because I believed (or believe) it made me a safer pilot.
Effectively what you're describing is 'deregulation', not 'nannying'.
it's really a sad state of affairs when the average instructor is (apparently) so unskilled that you can't trust him
Sounds like you had a pretty good PPL course. However if the blueprint for a better PPL is everybody goes out and buys a 1940's taildragger and then finds an instructor who will work for 40$ a flight then flight instruction in the USA will pretty much instantly stop.
Sadly AFAIK I am the only instructor at my quite busy home airport that is qualified to teach a PPL on a tailwheel aircraft. A pretty common situation IMO. So we can pine for a totally impractical model of flight training or take today's reality of low hour instructors flying C 150/172/Pa28's and ask what is the art of the possible to make today's instructing better. My personal opinion is that there should be a real push to reinforce the development of foundation flying skills. I am talking about the boring unsexy things like holding a stable and correct attitude for the phase of flight, having the aircraft always properly trimmed, keeping the ball in the centre etc etc. For example before you should start worrying about recovering from a spin you should be able to do a 30 degree banked turn at 1.1 Vs.
Equally sadly I don't see that many students that are willing to pay for quality flight training or even want good training. The majority want the minimum that will get them through the flight test
Fortunately I have a day job flying a large T prop airliner and instruct part time as a hobby. This allows me to be very choosy on who I teach.BTW I think the your instructor was a fool. I charge $50 an hour for all my time, ground and air, for the PPL and considerably more for advanced training and I should probably charge more.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 5th Aug 2012 at 05:19.
@Genghis... normally I have great respect for everything you say. But in this case I'm having a bit of difficulty. There is no way that this is an aerobatic manoeuvre, defined (by the FAA at least) as "an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight". The only clause which could possibly apply would be "abnormal attitude" (i.e. AoA beyond the critical point) but then that applies to any stall which would make all stalls aerobatic.
As for needing an aerobatic aircraft... this is a strictly 1G manoeuvre. If you get it badly wrong it becomes the very beginning of an incipient spin, but instantly corrected by releasing the stick/yoke. I'm NOT suggesting that pre-PPL pilots go out and do this on their own, but with an instructor who is comfortable with it (including recovery from a botched one). My 182 flies it like a pussy cat, you barely need to touch the pedals. Generally, it's a great demonstration that a stall is NOT instant death, that in fact a plane can be flown stably in a stall right down to flare altitude. (Apparently A330s fly it very nicely too, though that's probably not the best aircraft to try it in).
I guess this is the UK "not in front of the children" mentality. But anything which makes pilots more comfortable in case they find themselves in odd situations is a good idea.
As for needing an aerobatic aircraft... this is a strictly 1G manoeuvre. If you get it badly wrong it becomes the very beginning of an incipient spin, but instantly corrected by releasing the stick/yoke. I'm NOT suggesting that pre-PPL pilots go out and do this on their own, but with an instructor who is comfortable with it (including recovery from a botched one). My 182 flies it like a pussy cat, you barely need to touch the pedals. Generally, it's a great demonstration that a stall is NOT instant death, that in fact a plane can be flown stably in a stall right down to flare altitude. (Apparently A330s fly it very nicely too, though that's probably not the best aircraft to try it in).
I guess this is the UK "not in front of the children" mentality. But anything which makes pilots more comfortable in case they find themselves in odd situations is a good idea.
(2) I do know my way around FAR-23, and doubt that Cessna have gone substantially outside that. FAR-23 does not include a requirement to stress any part of the aeroplane for this manoeuvre. It is possible that the horizontal stabiliser is seeing loads during the falling leaf that were never considered during certification and are outside the "limit case".
(3) The first instinct of any pilot reaching the stall should be to recover. Any training practice that instead of that becomes "ooh, that's interesting, let's see what happens if we stay here", is not creating the right attitude.
Those are my reasons. (2) is probably the reasons that stalling has I think been banned in the B737 - Boeing realised it was beyond the FAR-25 design cases, which are substantially the same as the ones in FAR-23.
G
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for your comment on the PC 12 accident. Anybody flying a 4 Million dollar high performance aircraft should IMO opinion have undergone formal upset training. Again the focus of all the upset training I have seen is early recognition of the upset and the most effective methods of returning the aircraft to controlled flight. I have not seen one of these programs that lets the aircraft get into a fully developed spin before starting a recovery. In any case the ultimate cause of the PC 12 crash was not the inability to recover from a spin it was extremely poor decision making by the pilot when manoevering around convective weather
BPF
I think you are missing my point! The PC12 was recorded in a descent rate of 10000 fpm so the aircraft was in some sort of spiral dive or dive before it broke up BUT that could have started as a stall /spin and developed into a spiral dive with the pilot believing he was in a spin!
I came into flying from car racing 30 years ago. A car will understeer, oversteer and slide. You can teach a normal driver to avoid getting into such situations but people are not perfect one day the driver inadvertanly gets into and understeer puts more lock in to avoid running into the brick wall and bang!
Spins stalls spiral dives are in themselves irrelevant it is more about identification and feeling comfortable with what the aircraft may throw at you.
Which brings us back to the original poster who is scared of stalls because one went wrong and filled his head with fear of the unknown.
He probably thinks tha if he was on his own and stalled he may enter a situation he is not familiar with and untrained to handle.
I suggest he goes in an aerobatic aircraft with the correct instructor and learns what the PPL syllabus no longer contains.
BTW you cannot throw out statistics from the 1940s as verification of modern training standards because it is not!
Pace
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am quite clear that it is not normally tested - so the potential risks have almost certainly not been explored during flight test of your C182 or numerous similar non-aerobatic types.
The certification standards are so that below Va you have to be able to put in full deflection of a single control, without the aircraft breaking up (plus a suitable safety margin). But there is no requirement whatsoever for the airframe to be strong enough to handle any rocking forward/backward or side/to/side of any control to the limit of its travel. Something a few Airbus pilots found out.
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf
In a "falling leaf" maneuver, it may well be that the vertical G forces are very limited - probably around 1G during the maneuver, and maybe 2.5G during the recovery. So I'm quite sure the wings won't come off. But at the same time you are using full left-to-right-and-back rudder to keep the aircraft level. Granted, you do so at Vs and not at Va, so the loads will be relatively light, but still there is no requirement whatsoever that the airframe is able to sustain this. So essentially you are a test pilot.
And it's not just the tail. Also consider what the fuel in your wing tanks of your PA28, and the wings themselves are experiencing when you start yawing left-right-left-right. Wings are immensely strong in the vertical, but not designed for any significant horizontal load.
In my opinion the falling leaf is a suitable maneuver for advanced pilot training, to help somebody get rid of "lazy feet" or to demonstrate edge-of-the-envelope flying. But it should be treated just like spin training: Suitable (aerobatic) aircraft, suitable instructor.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northants
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Australia in my PPL training we covered stalls including stalls with a wing drop but never fully developed spins. I don't find them at all scary however I certainly would at 500ft AGL. Having done some introductory aerobatics spins can be great fun but not in a PA-28!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a chilled out professional FI helps. When I did all manner of stalls for the CPL (turning, accellerated etc...) the FI was extremely experienced. His attitude was "well if we spin we shall recover, no big deal".
I did a bit of aero's a while back and the FI was a true professional. He'd find it funny when we were "falling with style" and start laughing before helping me recover. This instills confidence so you know that if you screw up, the worst that will happen is you'll have a laughing FI sat next to you...
Some of the more "fresh" FI's who are nervous and not really that competent do not fill me with confidence and there is no way in a million years I'd want to do any advanced stuff with them.
I did a bit of aero's a while back and the FI was a true professional. He'd find it funny when we were "falling with style" and start laughing before helping me recover. This instills confidence so you know that if you screw up, the worst that will happen is you'll have a laughing FI sat next to you...
Some of the more "fresh" FI's who are nervous and not really that competent do not fill me with confidence and there is no way in a million years I'd want to do any advanced stuff with them.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any problems with stalling and stall training.
Got to be well above the ground
and got to keep the ball in the middle with the rudder.
Recovery from a stall should be instinctive, for any pilot: unloading the wings immediately, and apply power as required.
Can get "interesting" at ~FL200, when there is no more power to be had
Got to be well above the ground
and got to keep the ball in the middle with the rudder.Recovery from a stall should be instinctive, for any pilot: unloading the wings immediately, and apply power as required.
Can get "interesting" at ~FL200, when there is no more power to be had
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is useful article in the August LAA mag Light Aviation on How to Avoid Stalls & Spins. It starts with a pic of the remains of a Europa in which a father and daughter died. The aircraft stalled and spinned in a turn back manoeuvre following an EFATO.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no problem with avoidance training but being a realist realise that with the best will in the world accidents happen when the pilot is distracted or panicky.
We should train handling pilots not aircraft drivers!
Large commercial airlines are fitted with all manner of devices to prevent a stall light aircraft are not!
The much publicised airline crash was caused by pilots who did not identify what was happening with the aircraft and failed to recover
The Author of this thread having experienced a stall recovery which went wrong and scared him will not loose that fear by more recovery to incipient.
What can happen is now firmly in his mind. The only way to lay that ghost to rest is to let him see that he can handle the beyond
Pace
We should train handling pilots not aircraft drivers!
Large commercial airlines are fitted with all manner of devices to prevent a stall light aircraft are not!
The much publicised airline crash was caused by pilots who did not identify what was happening with the aircraft and failed to recover
The Author of this thread having experienced a stall recovery which went wrong and scared him will not loose that fear by more recovery to incipient.
What can happen is now firmly in his mind. The only way to lay that ghost to rest is to let him see that he can handle the beyond
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 5th Aug 2012 at 10:24.
Moderator
Needless to say we did all kinds of things up to my limit, the aircraft and instructor had none that were applicable to our limited scope, and that included a lot of slow flight, a lot of stalls, a lot of irresponsible 
falling leafs (give me a break), and a some junior spin entries and recoveries, intentional and unintentional. It was part of learning to fly, done by common sense with a good instructor without following some paint by numbers nanny system that assumes everybody involved is an unskilled idiot needing protection from themselves. IMHO that's what it takes to learn to fly.
falling leafs (give me a break), and a some junior spin entries and recoveries, intentional and unintentional. It was part of learning to fly, done by common sense with a good instructor without following some paint by numbers nanny system that assumes everybody involved is an unskilled idiot needing protection from themselves. IMHO that's what it takes to learn to fly.
I re state that I am not an instructor, and defer to the wisdom and experience of pilots like Big Pistons when it comes to proper instructing techniques. However, I opine that a "good" instructor, while assuring that the required curriculum is properly covered, will also allow the student to try anything they want within the limits of the aircraft, and push closer to those limits as the student's improving skill shows to be appropriate. The problem comes when the instructor is not comfortable being near those limits them self. The student looses. Big Pistons has previously asserted that instructors should have received aerobatic training - I certainly agree! While I was being "checked out" on a flying club 172, so I could there after go and test fly it, the instructor asked me is I would demonstrate a roll. No, I would not. During the brief discussion which followed, I realized he was not trying to set me up, he really just wanted to see a roll, and never had, and on his present career path never would. That's a problem. EVERY instructor should have the self confidence to recover from a roll in at least a safe way.
As for stalls, the certified plane can do it - all can. With proper loading, and stable air, a stall within 30 degrees of wings level will be benign in all cases. I think a part of the problem is "hanger talk" by pilots who have scared themselves in the past, now creating unfair reputations about things. I had heard many not so good things about Piper Navajo's flying characteristics over the years. What a shame that my eager ears listened. I had two to test fly, each with different external mods. I went for a half hour check out, having never flown one before. I expect longer, but he said I was fine. So an hour later there I am stalling with the left engine stopped and feathered, not only wings level, but 15 degrees bank in each direction. The Navajo was a delight, and not at all deserving the bad things I had heard. I entered these maneuvers with great caution and "build up", but reminded myself that the plane had demonstrated this before - it could do it. I had to do it - and I did....
I bet that 95% of the instructors I could ever have learned with would have forbade my even thinking about doing that, what a shame.... It just takes the right amount of training and caution, and the right conditions.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We now have got to the stage that Cirrus pilots are told to wreck the aircraft by pulling the chute as they are so poorly trained or current in PFLs and handling that the chute is the best option.
As for Cirrus pilot training the CPPP is an excellent course. Cirrus has taken an aggressive position in providing new owner training as part of the purchase. It is not an extra but included with all purchases.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Pace): I have no problem with avoidance training but being a realist realise that with the best will in the world accidents happen when the pilot is distracted or panicky.
Similarly, I believe that even for the best stick'n rudder ace with lots of controlled stall/spin/spiral dive recoveries under his belt chances are that an inadvertent and surprising stall/spin will result in a startled "WTF?!?
" and a wrong "panic" reaction, at least initially. So while I agree that getting to experience spins etc. first-hand with an appropriate instructor in an appropriate aircraft at appropriate altitude is a valuable experience (and might take away the "awe of the unknown"; it did for me), I doubt it makes even partly immune against panic let alone distraction. IMHO, at least for the much-cited turn-to-finals accident and similar scenarios, judgment and situation awareness beat Stroker Ace reflexes and Top Gun aircraft handling skills any time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of crap
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 5th Aug 2012 at 14:35.
.
BPF
I think you are missing my point! The PC12 was recorded in a descent rate of 10000 fpm so the aircraft was in some sort of spiral dive or dive before it broke up BUT that could have started as a stall /spin and developed into a spiral dive with the pilot believing he was in a spin!
Spins stalls spiral dives are in themselves irrelevant it is more about identification and feeling comfortable with what the aircraft may throw at you.
BPF
I think you are missing my point! The PC12 was recorded in a descent rate of 10000 fpm so the aircraft was in some sort of spiral dive or dive before it broke up BUT that could have started as a stall /spin and developed into a spiral dive with the pilot believing he was in a spin!
Spins stalls spiral dives are in themselves irrelevant it is more about identification and feeling comfortable with what the aircraft may throw at you.
What I am against is spin training for the PPL. In particular where the plane is deliberately put into a spin and into spin controls are held until the spin is fully developed (ie more then 2 turns) and the spin recovery is "practiced". I think this is an utterly useless exercise at the PPL level.
The goal of PPL training should be to properly teach the foundation skills. Before you can fully understand the spin you have to be able to understand and control in slow flight and then in the approach to the stall and then into the stall itself.
These exercises are properly taught IMO with the emphasis on recognizing the signs of the impending stall and recovering from them before the airplane stalls. If the aircraft does stall then I think it is absolutely vital that the instinctive and automatic reaction of stick forward, full power, and rudder to control yaw be inculcated.
Doing this requires a goodly number of practice stalls and helps to build the confidence in the student that he/she can maintain control of the aircraft and quickly recover even if they miss the signs of the impending stall. An emphasis on controlling yaw during the stall and subsequent recovery will prevent the stall from developing into an incipient spin and then proceeding to a full spin.
Personally I don't think "spin" training would have made any difference to the outcome of the PC12 crash. What he needed was "upset" training which is specifically designed to train a pilot to quickly regain control when the plane suffers an upset, which undoubtedly happened here. By definition utilizing upset recovery procedures will cause the aircraft to recover before it enters a fully developed spin or spiral dive.
As an experienced PPL/CPL/ME/IFR and aerobatic instructor I guess I have strong opinions on this subject based on what I have seen and done over the last 25 years. We seem to be opposite sides of this argument and so maybe it is time to just agree to disagree.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 5th Aug 2012 at 15:37.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an experienced PPL/CPL/ME/IFR and aerobatic instructor I guess I have strong opinions on this subject based on what I have seen and done over the last 25 years. We seem to be opposite sides of this argument and so maybe it is time to just agree to disagree.
I have always enjoyed your detailed and informative posts and no I do not think we are that far apart
Pace