F3G

The aircraft was within C of G. You were there to perform a BFR, an exercise which normally involves the usual collection of FAA stalls.

And yet you were surprised to be asked to perform a fairly standard BFR-style stall, and, despite the fact that the aircraft was within both weight and balance, decided to discontinue and find another FTO.

Did I get any of that wrong?

2D

2 Donks

The flight portion of the BFR content is agreed with the instructor and the PPL beforehand and can vary. Some instructors are more keen on stalling than others.

We had agreed to stalls in landing configuration with 1500rpmand slow flying practice, with the aim to be to fly on the edge fo the stall warner. The instructor decided to ask for a full power departure stall mid flight, although this was not agreed up front. He also asked me to change tanks on the ground without a power check before departure - how do you feel about that?

The aircraft was within w&b for normal category flights, in my opinion it should have been in utility category for a full power departure stall.

As you say, I decided to find another FBO and then successfully completed the BFR and was signed off for another two years.

By the way, I also declined to attempt a stall during my GFT, due to the examiner asking me to do someting that was not safe and passed that with a pat on the back for judgement, so what are you saying?

Should PPLs always regard instructors as being beyond criticism or challenge?

Nope, but it's not a bad starting point if they think there's something unsafe or rusty in your flying.

G

I'm with Genghis.

You sound like an angry young man to me F3G!

It is highly unfortunate that you have something of a track record chosing instructors and indeed an examiner hell-bent on bringing about your early demise.

You are lucky to have been able to put these losers straight and I trust that they were suitably grateful.


2D

:O

2 Donkeys

Thanks for calling me young, not many do these days.

BTW, on the GFT, I was asked to stall over the top of a power station, at around 1,800 agl, so I think that the loser would have been me, if I had agreed ;)

The examiner was certainly not a loser, but a very respected guy named Danny Wolfe, who you may have heard of, but who sadly passed away a little while ago.

He was a hell of a nice guy, but did expect students to be situationally aware and demonstrate appropriate judgement when tested.

F3G I can't remember actually discussing what was to be done during any of my BFR flight checks. I think after an hour ground discussing various aspects of flying including questions on reading sectionals, airport markers and W&B calculations, the instructor says “OK, let’s go fly" and then I just comply with the requests of the instructor. If a pilot is reasonably "current" then there should be no problems in complying with requests to carry out normal maneuvers which to me includes steep turns, power on and off stalls, PFL's and pattern joining procedures. All pretty basic stuff really and I wouldn't expect to be given any prior notice of the exact content of the test. On a rental check out, I would expect pretty much the same sort of requests from the instructor. Not exactly difficult stuff that needs a prior briefing I wouldn't have thought!

In spite of comments here, I personally have no reservations whatsoever about carrying out power on stalls with a PA28 or Cessna training aircraft (at or above 3,000ft agl. even with a passenger in the back (obviously no passengers in the back of a 152 though!).

Final3Greens
If I have been following correctly and you said
"The aircraft was within w&b for normal category flights, in my opinion it should have been in utility category for a full power departure stall."

May I just add in my humble opinion, that for ANY stalling excercise, in any config, the aircraft should be in the utility catergory, at least for the Piper singles I have flown, 140, 161, 180 and 210R.

FF

Thanks for your comments, its good to know that at least one other person recognises the difference between utility and normal category for a PA28 and what this means in reallity.

Nope, fraid in my view a "normal" category airplane is OK. a full power stall is again in my view a stall and not a whip stall and therefore is within the window of certification for both "normal" and "utility" aircraft. and we are talking cessna's and PA28's here!

Below is an extract from FAR Sec. 23.3 -see item (2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 23.3 Airplane categories.

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation. Nonacrobatic operation includes:
(1) Any maneuver incident to normal flying;
(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.
(b) The utility category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for limited acrobatic operation. Airplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited acrobatic operations. Limited acrobatic operation includes:
(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of airplane); and
[(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar maneuvers, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.]
(c) The acrobatic category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for use without restrictions, other than those shown to be necessary as a result of required flight tests.

Power on stalls can happen rather easily when taking off at high density altitudes. Good idea to be able to recognise and recover from them.

Re BFR's and rudders: my last BFR was with a right malevolent b@stard CFI who made me spend well over half an hour at and beyond the critical angle of attack with both power on and off. In fact we did little else. It didn't take much turbulence to make a wing drop, and rudder was used to pick them up. We were quite prepared to spin and were in a suitable machine. Remarkably good practice and something that everybody should be comfortable with and be able to demonstrate to an instructor.

Without the benefit of the Archer POH in front of me, I can't be 100% sure, but I am pretty confident that it does not need to be loaded in the Utility category in order to be able to perform stalls of the type under discussion.

Absent the POH, the passage that sensible quotes out of FAR23 seems pretty conclusive to me.

Is it your belief that you can't stall an Archer other than when loaded in the Utility category, F3G? That seems to be what you are saying?

Sensible, this has nothing at all to do with normal and utility aircraft!!
If you look at the C of G diagram for Mr Pipers Warrior you will see that there is a utility category with more stringent weight and C of G positions in the same diagram as the normal category. Looking at a diagram for a 180 the utilty section of the graph shows a max wt of just under 2000 lbs with a C of G falling between 84 and 86.5 inches aft of the datum. The normal cat is much less restrictive with a max all up wt of 2400 lbs and the C of G falling between 84 and 95.8 inches aft of the datum, to cover myself this is for one of the aircraft I instruct in and not for planning purposes!!

To the best of my knowledge the aircraft must be loaded in accordance with the utility category part of the diagram if the intention is to carry out stalls in the aircraft. Failure to heed this takes you in to test pilot territory :\ and more than likely will invalidate your insurance.

As always if in doubt read the POH :ok:

I don't have the benefit of Mr Pipers handbook at my fingertips, however, what I still say is that there is nothing which prohibits carrying out a "power on stall" since this is within the capabilities and certification of a "normal" category aircraft and the Cessna and PA28's are at least "normal" category aircraft. I maintain that it is completely unnecessary to have an aircraft which is certified or loaded for that matter in "utility" category to perform a "power on" stall.

The FAA have long had "departure stalls" as part of their approach to flying training.
In the UK there have been a number of inadvertant full power stalls that have had fatal results.
By all means limit the requirement for any evaluation of a pilots skills to recognition and recovery at the incipient stage but all pilots should have seen an instructors demonstration taken right into the stall if only to show the dramatic result.
In any case when the angle of attack is reduced to less than the stalling angle any further drama stops instantly and normal flight can be resumed.
Trapper 69

The stall in question was wings level, (no bank), stick full back, full power, stall warner screaming, no flap. The power on stalls being quoted here are generally, flap and in a turn with reduced power.

It is an extremley unusual attitude but I quite freely admit, I messed it up.

Obviously at full power a lot of right rudder was needed to keep the ball in the middle. At the stall the right wing dropped, instructor said neutralise control, stick forward and left rudder. Just couldn't do it, kept spinning it left. I totally agreed with the instructor and wanted to practice it but was leaving the next day. I agree it has exposed a flaw in my technique and want to iron it out. I had been flying the PA-28(checked out on, no power on stall tested) all week and only needed a check out on the 152 coz there were no warriors available that day.

At the end of the day I wanted to be safe in the instructor's eyes not the CFI's eyes (British) and it was FAA airspace I was flying in and should therefore be able to fly to FAA standard.

Any more tips on how to get it right?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recovery technique is to maintain full power and move the control column centrally forward until the stall identification ceases. Then - and only then - level the wings and recover to normal flight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BEagles advice is the ONLY correct method of recovery. You MUST GENTLY move the stick forward and then get the airspeed up so that the aircraft is flying again, then, and ONLY THEN make inputs such as pulling the stick back GENTLY again to arrest the descent and applying rudder inputs to stabilise the aircraft. All this only takes a few seconds. You MUST be aware of your airspeed to ensure a swift recovery otherwise a secondary stall or oscillating flight is a real possibility. I know that the rotation of the aircraft due to wing drop is a little worrying but once the aircraft is flying again, it will sort itself out, honest! The worst thing that you can do is to make rapid contol inputs which will only result in a delayed recovery. Ask your instructor to do a stall whilst you rest your feet and hands on the controls to experience how he handles the recovery. You should not need to apply full opposite rudder, this is a spin recovery method and you are stalling not spinning at this stage!

Check your PM's

At the moment I can only find online, the following part of an article, guys please read the POH for your aircraft.

F. MANEUVERS: The following maneuvers are approved for operation in the UTILITY CATEGORY only,
with recommended entry speeds shown:
Chandelles
Lazy Eights
Steep Turns
Stalls - Except Whip Stalls
Spins
109 MPH TIAS
109 MPH TIAS
109 MPH TIAS
- Use slow deceleration
Spins are prohibited

this is taken from some info on a Mooney and as you see states what you can and can't do, stalls are only allowed in the UTILITY cat, as soon as I can I will find the relevant documentation for the Piper series.

Off the top of my head the normal cat gives you a design load of 3.8G the utility cat 4.4G, the increased G loading allowable is because of the more restrictive weight limatations placed on the aircraft, please also remember that Va(manouver speed) is also much lower at these lighter weights.

FF

2 Donks

I am not asserting that an Archer needs to be in utility configuration to do a stall per se , Flying Farmer raised that point and like you, I don't have an Archer POH here to cross check, - if you read my story, I was quite happy to demonstrate stalls in landing configuration and slow flying.

1 - Practically, I don't wish to do a full power stall in an Archer with a very rear c of g, simply because I am concerned about the risks of getting into a spin in an aircraft that isn't cleared for one (thus we are now test pilots) and where one close relative (G-BBLA PA28-140) was lost due to failure to recover from a spin in 1996.

2 - Legally, I don't know how the lawyers would argue the definition of a whip stall (from the FAR quoted by Sensible), but my guy wanted me to transition from a 100kt cruise into a full power climb and I guess that a smart legal beagle could make a case for that being a whip stall

But #2 is pedantry, #1 is my problem.

I've done departure stalls in C150/2s and have no problem with them (apart from an egg sized bruise from bashing my head against the side frame when the instructor demonstrated the first one and we got the mother and father of a wing drop.)

But in a rear loaded Archer I ain't going to do one and if the instructor won't sign me off that's his perrogative. Mine is to find another FBO and CFI. If he wants to look at departure stalls, that's fine, but then we go in a suitable aircraft, my preference would be a 152.

Whip stalls are quite specific and not related to the stall under discussion here.

G-BBLA failed to recover from a spin and the AAIB determined that on entry, it was likely that the aircraft was out of W an B, (slightly forward of the forwardmost point on the envelope). The specific aircraft was also known to exhibit somewhat unusual spin behaviour, although nobody saw fit to do anything about this.

Whilst the PA28-140 and the Archer are of the same evolutionary tree, it would be a mistake to think of them as being close relatives from a handling point of view. The differing wing shapes do have different characteristics, albeit both fairly benign.

2D

As I said, the whip stalls issue was pedantry ;)

At least with G-BBLA the type was cleared for spinning.

As you imply, the AAIB did not prove that the aircraft was out of w&b, this could not be done because the right hand seat had broken free of it's rail.

What they did do was to assess the probable position of the seats, based on the known length of the crews legs and their weights, concluding that the cofg was probably 0.2" forward of the forward limit.

Whether this was significant in an aircraft that had demonstrated a nose high spinning attitude is beyond my competence to assess.

For me, the lesson from this sad accident, was that a PA28 can and will bite if given the opportunity, even when crewed by people with a total of 20,000 hours time.

Yes, I agree that the Hershey bar and taper wings give different handling characteristics, I\'ve flown PA28s with both types, including the Arrer IV and the 200B.

As far as I am aware, none of the taper wings have ever been certified for spinning, so the -140 is the closest reference point for which Piper data exists.