Stalling - Help & Advice

[JAKL]

Some very valid points raised so far and most educational, but I think you've all missed some important parts of the procedure...

My instructor, 33 years ago, told me the first and most important action upon stalling is to apply the parking brake.
Second is to depress the clutch before restarting, then mirror, signal, manoeuvre, before continuing.

My apologies chaps, couldn't resist, I'll just button my coat!

[foxmoth]

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

Well I have entered stalls and had incipient spins unexpectedly with both myself and students handling, these have mainly been during aeros, and it was not WTF and panic reaction, but instinctive recovery, then WTF, this is what the training and experience gives you, plus the ability after the WTF to work out what happened and why.

[lenhamlad]

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the numerous posts following the question posed by Flyboy. As a recently qualified PPL with less than 100 hrs under my belt, I too worry constantly about stalling and the results thereafter. In some way, the various views, apart from the common advice of stick forward, wings level and full power, typefies the mystique of the way to handle stalls and the possible spin/spiral dive that may follow if not addressed. My instructor a 19,000 hr commercial pilot but also a very able aerobatic maestro, fully encouraged me to address the stall in its various guises but I think I shall take the advice of a number of posters and have an hour or two in an aerobatic aircraft with him to try and dispel some of the demons between my ears. I'll just have to put up with the uncomfortable and queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach!

[paulp]

OK here is a bit of a ramble on training.

It is a fact that safety improved in the US after spin training was eliminated. The question as to why remains. I suspect it was an increased focus on stall avoidance, stall recovery and spin avoidance. When people talk about spin training they act as if spins happen most often at 8000'. Most stalls happen at less than 1000' AGL. That means stall recovery. A spin is tool late in the process. I did spin training and probably need a refresher. I'm not opposed to it. In fact I think it is great stuff. Even more valuable is upset training. I do not, however, see lack of spin recovery skills as the cause of a major percentage of fatalities.

This brings up a related subject. If you believe GA is a good thing and that people who can only fly 50 hours a year should be allowed to do so then you need to structure your thoughts around how to keep those pilots as safe as possible. They will never match someone who trains 100 hours a year. As an example, the FAA made a good move allowing the substitution of a backup AI in place of a turn coordinator. How long does the ability to fly in real IMC using a turn coordinator last if not practiced? I doubt very long. A very seasoned pilot and good friend says it never really existed. He says a real world failure of a mechanical AI would have you on your side before the average pilot figured it out. The real world failure is very different from an instructor putting a Post-It over the AI. As an aside, one of the nice things about modern glass cockpits is the way an AI fails. Internal cross checking almost always catches it and removes the bad indication and replaces it with a big red X. Coming back to spins, I think stall avoidance and recovery is a more easily maintainable skill. A pilot can go out and practice a few stalls by himself but spins often aren't authorized in the owner’s aircraft.

Recognizing that we can never make flying 100% safe, we must look at where accidents really happen even if the data goes against our preconceptions. One I often hear aimed at Cirrus pilots is lack of basic flying skills. Those accidents are certainly out there. However, when I look at the data what stands out to me are two other categories 1) Critical decision making (CDM) and 2) A good understanding of how to use what is in the plane.

1) There are way too many fatalities by the age old VFR flight into IMC, poor choice of approach, show off flying, flight into know icing, etc. Perhaps instructors should spend a little more time explaining when to say no. How many instructors talk about approach selection based on the missed? A crash occurred because the plane couldn't meet the required climb rate of the GPS missed. The VOR approach (including missed) was flyable in the plane.

2) I see a lot of discussion of too much autopilot use leading to deteriorating skills. However, when I look at fatal accidents I see something else. I see pilots who could have gotten out of trouble just by engaging the AP and using it to safely fly to clear air. AP failures in IMC are actually very rare in modern aircraft. Isn't it sad that pilots get into IMC unexpectedly and rather than engaging the AP and using the heading bug to find clear air they hand fly until they eventually get disoriented and crash. In a Cirrus too few pilots understand BRS as an option. What stands out is not the number of useless chute pulls (very few) but rather the number of preventable deaths because the BRS system wasn't used.

Want to help your instrument students? Teach them how to get out of messed up avionics. A new instrument pilot died due to confusing instructions from ATC combined with an edit to a Garmin 430 flight plan that sent him into a mountain. When I used to fly behind a 430 I spent a lot of time figuring out why I sometimes got surprising results.

Read the report on NASA reports for TAA aircraft. It is shocking. How about an airspace violation because the pilot didn't know how to clear a warning message off of the GPS display! Then I remembered that during my PPL I was never once allowed or taught how to use either the AP or the GPS. In modern aircraft you need to UNDERSTAND the systems.

A Piper Cub, an SR22 and a 747 are all very different and require different training. We are past the age where every aircraft panel looks the same.

OK, end of rant.

[Armchairflyer]

(Acf):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.

(foxmoth):Well I have entered stalls and had incipient spins unexpectedly with both myself and students handling, these have mainly been during aeros, and it was not WTF and panic reaction, but instinctive recovery, then WTF, this is what the training and experience gives you, plus the ability after the WTF to work out what happened and why.

Granted, but a momentary upset/stall/spin during aerobatics at sufficient altitude, with you being completely geared up in aerobatic/UA mode and "in the loop" (in addition to your ample training and experience) IMHO hardly compares to a supposedly uneventful maneuver at pattern altitude with attention distracted from properly handling the plane and watching attitude and airspeed (for whatever reason) when suddenly the houses start rushing at you, not only turning wildly but looking really big from the outset (and that's the kind of -WTF I was referring to).

[flyinkiwi]

I think we need to clarify here that recovering from a stall and recovering from a spin are two distinct procedures that are not necessarily identical. The OP is referring to stalling, so we should be discussing stall recovery techniques so that student pilots reading this are not confused.

My 2c for the OP, I was something of a nervous student. Even after 30 hours I still had to regularly remind myself not to grip the controls so hard because it was significantly affecting my concentration levels because I was fatiguing far more rapidly than I should have been. When I did basic stalling the instructor demonstrated a hands off recovery from a basic stall. When trimmed properly training aircraft will fly themselves out of a stalled condition if you take your hands and feet off the controls, it is all a matter of how much altitude you have up your sleeve. When I came to do wing drop stalls I was sick with fear. I guess my instructor knew it but I did what in hindsight was the right thing to do and vocalized my feelings as I opened the throttle for takeoff. He smiled and nodded and said he would ease me into things. After 45 minutes not only was I flying the entry and recovery unaided, I was reluctant to return to the airport because I was having so much fun. The moral of this story is, if you are concerned with or have doubts about a lesson, for Pete's sake tell your instructor. If they are worth their salt they will adjust the lesson to help placate your nerves, and you never know, you might end up having a bit of fun along the way. That lesson for me rates as one of the highlights of my flight training.

[Pace]

Paul

Accidents from spins in the USA reduced not because of some magic awareness of stall avoidance but because spins were removed from
The syllabus.
Really spins in themselves are not the issue here training handling pilots is!
The author of the thread is scared of stalls because one stall did not go to plan and gave him a taste of what could happen!
Having had that taste the poor guy was peering into the unknown and felt unable or knowledgable to recover!
A stall can lead to a spin or a spiral dive!
The spin is not the big bad ogre many make out ! Pre war it was used as a controlled way to make a cloud break and recover when visual!
But this is not what the argument is about!
The tendency in training is to go more and more towards avoidance meaning that pilots so trained are not suitably trained beyond avoidance and that is fine as long as a situation does not occur where avoidance does not work!
You claim that spins and spirals only happen low level.
I fact they occur in Imc or around severe turbulence!
But that again is not the point.
I can be trained as a racing driver to understand the right lines correct braking , power application , understeer, oversteer,slides!
How would I be as a racing driver if I had never experienced these things!
How would I be as an ordinary driver on the day my avoidance failed and I understeered straight into a brick wall because I knew no better?

Pace

[foxmoth]

granted, but a momentary upset/stall/spin during aerobatics at sufficient altitude, with you being completely geared up in aerobatic/UA mode and "in the loop" (in addition to your ample training and experience) IMHO hardly compares to a supposedly uneventful maneuver at pattern altitude with attention distracted from properly handling the plane and watching attitude and airspeed (for whatever reason) when suddenly the houses start rushing at you, not only turning wildly but looking really big from the outset (and that's the kind of -WTF I was referring to).

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively

[Pace]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!
If those pilots got into a full bloodied stall or worse a spin the ones trained to incipient would not have a clue what to do! Recovering instinctively come from experience not lack of it !

Pace

[Armchairflyer]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place (...)

Sure, but that would be about recognition and avoidance anyway, wouldn't it?

(...), but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively.

Agreed as well, but the question remains if there is enough distance to the rising ground left.

My point is not about stall/spin training being useless, just that an emphasis on awareness, recognition, avoidance and immediate recovery at the incipient stage instead of getting (too?) familiar with fully developed stalls/spins yields considerably bigger safety gains in the PPL curriculum, certainly as far as the prevailing "maneuvring flight" accidents at low altitude are concerned.

[Pilot DAR]

Did this pilot recognize that the aircraft was stalled? Did he avoid a stall? (the nose did not drop)

[FullWings]

Sorry, still have to disagree, someone well trained in flying near the stall will first off recognise this much more readily and and be very likely to avoid getting into the situation in the first place, but if they should end up in an inadvertent stall/incipient spin, reactions will likely be there to recover instinctively

Well said.

It is about instinctive, possibly even reflexive actions. As soon as the airframe stops responding in the normal manner to control inputs, the initial, almost unconscious reaction must be to reduce the angle of attack. Diagnosis of the actual event can follow later.

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!

I'd agree with the second part, not always with the first. Training people in "here's a stalled aircraft, now recover it", "show me some stalls and recoveries" or "talk me through the symptoms of the stall and recovery" is missing the point - it's too late by then. Better to tell someone to fly just above the stall while manoeuvring the aircraft - you'll soon see whether they have the required skills/instincts or not. I'd thought the whole idea was to train someone NOT to depart from controlled flight, not to demonstrate how good they are at losing it, law of primacy and all that?

[foxmoth]

Totally disagree with this recognising incipient stalls is nothing new or groundbreaking pilots of old who were trained beyond incipient were equally aware of an impending stall !! Just better equipt to dealing with anything that developed beyond incipient!
If those pilots got into a full bloodied stall or worse a spin the ones trained to incipient would not have a clue what to do! Recovering instinctively come from experience not lack of it !

Pace, I can see you disagree with me, but not sure what you are disagreeing with??? I am not saying you JUST train to incipient (though recovery at this stage should be the emphasis) but that someone who is fully conversant and current with ALL stalling phases will be unlikely to reach a full stall because they will have reacted and recovered before this, and for those that say it will be useless at circuit height, a recovery done promptly at this stage will take about 50' - even fully developed (stall, not spin) you should only be looking at 100-200'.

[paulp]

Pace

I mentioned that I have had spin training and found it useful. I don't disagree with the training being a good thing. Probably the most useful thing to learn from it is that planes only know relative wind and the tug of gravity. Hence they fly upside down and in many other attitudes so don't freak and just fly. However, a base to final turn with an uncoordinated stall is an all too common scenario and that depends on a focus on coordinated flight and IMMEDIATE reaction to a stall. I am reacting to the impression I get reading your posts that spin training will fix the GA accident rate. I believe that the biggest improvement potential is in the area of critical decision making.

As for the person posting being nervous, spin training and unusual attitude training would be useful so that he would be comfortable and just fly the plane when unexpected things happen.

[KMSS]

Some years ago as a gliding instructor our training syllabus always included what we called incipient spins -- as someone has already said above, that basically meant recovery in the first 1/4 turn of a developing spin. If you fly gliders long enough you'll experience "being stalled and spun" by gusts because thermaling is done a few knots above stall, in a steep bank, with somewhat crossed controls (in a steep bank with long wings, rudder in direction of turn and ailerons a bit against the bank are what create coordinated flight). Gusty conditions would eventually do the trick, and sometimes it was close to the ground in ridge soaring situations.

What hasn't been mentioned in much detail is that pilots vary widely in their ability to sense and respond correctly in this situation. I found that pilots who were trained by primarily visual cues and numbers often didn't have the feel for what to do. Under stress we revert to trained tactile responses, and if they had none, well that's a problem. That required some retraining in the basics of control feel. Then there's the issue of being able to respond while experiencing the physiological sense of falling or being out-of-control as the aircraft began to yaw and the nose dropped. For that, experiencing it more than once was the only way. Maybe the more scared a pilot is, the more they need to practice it with the right instructor and equipment until their trained response on the controls is more reliable than their panic.

[Pace]

Paul

I am obviously NOT getting my message across in a clear way so one last try
Spinning in an isolated fashion is irrelevant.
If you have flown spins you will know that some end up in a spiral dive which is a very different situation.
While I fully appreciate the importance of never going there and the importance of identifying an aircraft close to a stall and stopping that developing I also realize that that target is wishful thinking, nice concept to hold but far from reality in real aircraft accidents.
Accidents happen when pilots are out of their own limits and usually a succession of incorrect decisions.
They become overloaded and I have seen pilots in such a state who could not even tell you their own name.
Those pilots could be in a situation where they miss the incipient stall because they are so preoccupied elsewhere and either find themselves in a full stall or worse.
I am an ex racer and find the comparison very close of a racing driver and an ordinary driver.
One is taught to handle a car and avoid situations where they get into a skid.
The racing driver is comfortable with the car out of shape at high speed understands oversteer understeer, power management, slides, braking points and weight distribution.
The poor ordinary driver gets into a situation where he has lost control and is ill equipt to do anything about it.
The racing driver is likely to drive faster but like for like is more likely to recover the situation.
So yes I am all for avoidance training but add the safeguard of feeling confident with the aircraft whatever it throws at you.
That does not mean the handling pilot will get away with it but he is more likely to than the untrained pilot.
We talk of instinctive reactions? Those are reactions which we have because they have ingrained into us through repeated experience.
The pilot trained to avoid may have instinctive reactions to avoid but go beyond that and he is in no mans land.
Spins in themselves are just one aspect of what can happen if a stall is not handled correctly, spiral dives another. IMO a pilot will benefit a lot from an aerobatic course with a good instructor where out of the box handling can be experienced and understood in safety.

Pace

[paulp]

Pace - Please read my last post one more time. What do you disagree with? I don't think it disagrees with a lot you have said. Are you saying poor CDM isn't an issue? Are you saying pilots are adequately trained and not making bad decisions such as VFR into IMC and that better stick and rudder skills will fix all? I am saying a whole spectrum of stick and rudder skills from uncoordinated base to final turns to, yes, flying the plane in an unusual attitude (including spin entry) is an issue. I just see the problem as broader and you give the me impression you think there is one and only one issue.

[michaelw961]

When I started flying I hated stalling excercises, they used to really scare me. I managed to get through my flight test and then avoided stalling at all costs. I then took a long break from flying (7 years) and when I began flying again really enjoyed the stalling excercises. I still had respect for stalling but if no longer frightened me. I'm unsure what the reason is. I think the impotant thing to realise is when practising your a long way from the ground, the conditions are under control and the outcome is expected. Last time I stalled a C152 it wouldn't drop a wing even though we tried hard (full flap, 2000 rpm,, rudder, yoke hard back at 60 knots)

[Armchairflyer]

(Pace): The racing driver is likely to drive faster but like for like is more likely to recover the situation.
So yes I am all for avoidance training but add the safeguard of feeling confident with the aircraft whatever it throws at you.
That does not mean the handling pilot will get away with it but he is more likely to than the untrained pilot.

The rather scarce and older findings I could find on the subject of racing drivers and accidents rather support the view that with (because of?) their superior wheel'n pedal skills, race drivers (or drivers trained in advanced car handling) tend to stretch their limits to an extent that rather results in a safety penalty [1]. One more recent study on the subject comes to the conclusion that a "focus on teaching drivers about self assessment and anticipation of risk, as opposed to teaching drivers how to master driving at the limits of tire adhesion" is considerably more promising concerning safety outcomes [2].

IMHO same goes for flying; the problem is arguably not so much what the aircraft may "throw at you" by itself, but rather what the pilot makes or lets the aircraft throw at him/her, and while the handling pilot is probably indeed more likely to get away with an identical "it" compared to an untrained pilot, taking care to stay out of trouble from the outset seems to be the better choice for accident prevention.

[1] e.g., A.F. Williams, B.F. O'Neill (1974), On-the-road driving records of licensed race drivers, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 3(4), p. 263–270.
[2] S. Washington, R.J. Cole, S. B. Herbel (2011), European advanced driver training programs: Reasons for optimism, IATTS Research, 34, p. 72-79

[Pace]

ArmchairPilot

I have no doubts that racing drivers or ex one ! will by their nature be faster on the roads than the average driver.
Probably the same as Red Bull flyers will be a different breed than the normal pilot.
They will probably be risk takers and as such have accidents pushing limits which the normal pilot might not take.
I agree with you on that!
But take the very tragic PC12 accident? Would the Red Bull pilot have recovered the situation?
I am pretty sure the answer would be yes.
Avoidance is very commendable but sometimes avoidance fails and hence the accident.
I still feel a course of 5 hrs in an aerobatic aircraft flying advanced out of the box techniques will add greatly to the understanding and confidence of a normal pilot Money well spent!

Pace