Has Stall Training been eliminated
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:09 pm
Has Stall Training been eliminated
https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... hute!.html
The 172 has no nasty stall characertistic that I'm aware of.
The 172 has no nasty stall characertistic that I'm aware of.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Are many Cirrus activations due to stall/spins? I thought the main advantage was during an engine failure if you're not flying over Saskatchewan, or if you royally screw up IFR, or after structural failure.TrilliumFlt wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:41 pm https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... hute!.html
The 172 has no nasty stall characertistic that I'm aware of.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Stall training still in the syllabus.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Deployment of a BRS 'chute does not result in recovery from a stall, but rather induces one for the rest of the flight. Anyone who feels that they need a BRS in a 172 should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Don’t forget the “I’m not sitting in that plane of yours unless you fit a parachute” factor.
Or maybe the pilot needs to land in a short field. Really short.
Or maybe the pilot needs to land in a short field. Really short.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 1:09 pm
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Fully agree, 100% or the training they received that leaves them feeling they need one.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
If a pilot is not comfortable doing stalls, there is a solution - do more, lots more...
I have done literally thousands of stalls. The most extreme, at TC's request, was demonstration of spin resistance in a Grand Caravan, stall to the break at 75% power, 30 degree bank, one ball out in yaw. It stalled, I recovered, dozens of times, then rode through it all again as the TC Test Pilot reflew it ( I think he was unsure to agree with my report until he did it himself - or...).
I did dozens of stalls in a 185 amphibian last week, trying to set up a non compliant stall warning system. As the stall warning system was not working, my indication of an approach to stall was that when I slowed more, it stalled. No big deal, just be sure to have some sky under you, and keep the ball in the middle.
The only airplane I have ever stalled which was un-nerving was the turbine DC-3. I suggest avoiding stalling that type. In fairness, it's a 1930's airframe design, which does not incorporate some more recent aerodynamic refinements which improve handling at the approach to stall.
I have done literally thousands of stalls. The most extreme, at TC's request, was demonstration of spin resistance in a Grand Caravan, stall to the break at 75% power, 30 degree bank, one ball out in yaw. It stalled, I recovered, dozens of times, then rode through it all again as the TC Test Pilot reflew it ( I think he was unsure to agree with my report until he did it himself - or...).
I did dozens of stalls in a 185 amphibian last week, trying to set up a non compliant stall warning system. As the stall warning system was not working, my indication of an approach to stall was that when I slowed more, it stalled. No big deal, just be sure to have some sky under you, and keep the ball in the middle.
The only airplane I have ever stalled which was un-nerving was the turbine DC-3. I suggest avoiding stalling that type. In fairness, it's a 1930's airframe design, which does not incorporate some more recent aerodynamic refinements which improve handling at the approach to stall.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
...says the person from Ontario. Some of us fly places where a forced landing would be very difficult due to trees and terrain. Also, it would be comforting in the event of structural failure (which I've experienced). I don't have a BRS in my 172, but I am very careful about Va in turbulence, never spinning or spiral diving it ever, corrosion, etc.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
And that's why I wrote: "should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely"Some of us fly places where a forced landing would be very difficult due to trees and terrain.
Yeah, there are some places where a crossing in any single is scary, I've flown the BC/Alberta/Quebec/Labrador and a few other mountains in a single over the years. I'm not saying that a single shouldn't do it, but it's a different mindset from flying over farmland. My personal preference would still be to control the plane to the point of whatever "landing" I can accomplish. I agree that there have been some successful BRS descents into the trees, yup some things do work. But would I equip a plane with BRS, at the expense of dollars/payload/maintenance to balance that risk? Not for me. If I'm that in doubt, I'll choose a different route, or a different plane.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
I agree that I don't think it's worth the expense and giving up the useful load on a 172. However, I think it would be nice to have, and would give a certain amount of peace of mind. There are certain risks we take when flying, and we can either accept the risk, not do that type of flying, or mitigate that small risk with something like a BRS.PilotDAR wrote: ↑Tue May 17, 2022 8:35 am
Yeah, there are some places where a crossing in any single is scary, I've flown the BC/Alberta/Quebec/Labrador and a few other mountains in a single over the years. I'm not saying that a single shouldn't do it, but it's a different mindset from flying over farmland. My personal preference would still be to control the plane to the point of whatever "landing" I can accomplish. I agree that there have been some successful BRS descents into the trees, yup some things do work. But would I equip a plane with BRS, at the expense of dollars/payload/maintenance to balance that risk? Not for me. If I'm that in doubt, I'll choose a different route, or a different plane.
-
- Rank 5
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:28 pm
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Crazy thought but not everyone who flies in a plane is a pilot. Some regular people feel safer having a chute. I know people who won't go up but would change their mind when the sr22 is mentioned.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
If I flew over the prairies mainly I don’t care about a chute, but if I flew all over BC or a lot at night a chute would definitely be nice to have since I’d rather hit the ground with No forward speed in those cases
- youhavecontrol
- Rank 5
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:17 am
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
There's so many good reasons to have one that aren't related to a pilot's skill level.
"I found that Right Rudder you kept asking for."
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Who knows why it was installed? Maybe a partner who wouldn't fly without it, maybe an older owner who wanted the security.
I doubt a pilot who decided they didn't know how to recover from a stall was the motive.
I doubt a pilot who decided they didn't know how to recover from a stall was the motive.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
It's worth having a complete understanding of the factors. The stall/spin recovery characteristics of a 172 are very well understood, and many pilots have experience with stall avoidance and recovery for a 172.Some regular people feel safer having a chute. I know people who won't go up but would change their mind when the sr22 is mentioned.
For the SR22, the inclusion of the "CAPS" (BRS) was not entirely for engine failure/pilot incapacitation reasons:
I won't claim to be expert at Cirrus certification, but from the "man on the street" understanding, an equivalent level of safety finding may be granted: When the applicant (Cirrus) requests it (it's not offered), and [usually] because the airplane could not demonstrate compliance with a requirement, so an alternate means was proposed as equivalent. In this case, the foregoing statement can be understood to mean that the Cirrus could not meet the requirements for spin recovery (applicable to all singles), so Cirrus proposed a 'chute instead, and the FAA agreed.SR20, SR22 and SR22T:
Equivalent Level of Safety Finding ACE-96-5/A: FAR 23.221; The ballistic recovery
system fitted as standard equipment on the SR-20 is based on the General Aviation Recovery
Device (GARD) 150 certificated for the Cessna 150/152 series airplane. Special conditions for the
GARD prior to the SR-20 were for a supplemental and not a primary safety device. Cirrus requested
credit for the system by accepting it as a safety device equivalent to §23.221 Spins.
That's fine if it's what you want, and I agree that the BRS provides an extra layer of safety in the case of engine failure or pilot incapacitation. But, what I understand is that to recover a mishandled stall [in an otherwise airworthy plane] the pilot action is to deploy the 'chute, where any other type, the skilled pilot would aerodynamically recover. So the pilot mishandles the downwind to base turn at Buttonville (which was already too far out for Pilot DAR's liking) the plane stalls, drops a wing, and the pilot pulls the 'chute. Hopefully there's enough altitude for the 'chute to work. Once, at Buttonville, it did not, a friend witnessed the crash into a business area.
In general, stall training will always be important, and more so, stall practice! If you choose to have a BRS, that's up to you, but understand why you chose it, its operational limitations, and what the compromises may be.
In my opinion, not all people are meant to fly, and some people are meant to fly only in airliners. If the presence or absence of a BRS is a deciding factor in flying a GA airplane, that person probably might be more relaxed not flying GA.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
It’s also possible that Cirrus wanted the ‘chute for marketing purposes, and having decided on that they were able to save a bunch of money by not engaging in a spin testing programme. I think it’s very unlikely that fitting a heavy expensive outside-sourced parachute was a cheaper option than minor aerodynamic tweaks to enable one turn spin recoveries.
One they specified a parachute, it’s not that they couldn’t meet 23.221, they didn’t need to find out.
Pilots’ partners love parachutes, and I’m sure Cirrus got the sale of a lot more airplanes approved by the family money committee by having one.
One they specified a parachute, it’s not that they couldn’t meet 23.221, they didn’t need to find out.
Pilots’ partners love parachutes, and I’m sure Cirrus got the sale of a lot more airplanes approved by the family money committee by having one.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
It also made the parachute a required system. If they did to the spin training program, the parachute would likely become optional in the future, leaving open the door for cirruses crashing without having a parachute, yet pilots (and family) thinking that the parachutes were faulty and didn't deploy.
It also takes away the temptation for a cash strapped pilot to remove the parachute when it needs to be inspected/'overhauled'.
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
172 stalls are quite boring and benign. If that scares you, don't fly.
"Carelessness and overconfidence are more dangerous than deliberately accepted risk." -Wilbur Wright
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:48 am
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
That would be my bet too. Although, maybe the owner previously experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?
Re: Has Stall Training been eliminated
Is that a thing? Ever, in GA history?....experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?