Too Much Crosswind For A Fully-Loaded 172!

[shitdisturber]

I'm going to join Cat and Shiny in being totally appalled by some of the responses I've seen on this thread. A slip is just another tool for getting an airplane down on the ground; just like believe it or not, flaps. Personally, in a light single I'm far more likely to use a slip to lose altitude than full flaps. It's fast, it's efficient, and unless you're terribly ham fisted; it's completely safe. As has been pointed out already; there's a reason that exercise fifteen is in the FTM. I'm not saying that they should be used on every approach but if you find yourself to be coming in high for whatever reason there's nothing wrong with it. Having put a few thousand landings on the runway Shiny uses I can state categorically that sometimes slips are the only way you're going to get down on the ground. It's short, it's narrow and if you've got an east wind you can easily find youself turning final at nine hundred feet; add that to the two to three hundred foot updraft you frequently get from the river bluff on short final and a slip will get you down when full flap probably won't.

[square]

Well I guess if there are this many people disagreeing with me I'm probably wrong here. But I'm just saying I've flown about 3000 hours in light Cessnas and Caravans, King Airs, 99s and 1900s the past 4 seasons, into all manner of short bush strips enclosed in 40 foot trees, abandoned airfields and surfaces unfit for quadding that eat up airplanes on a regular basis and I do not ever use slips. The last time I did one was in 2007 in a heavy crosswind and my customers later expressed concern that we were going to crash going sideways at the ground like that. So I figured I would just use flaps and power management instead.

I did have to overshoot one time in 2008 though, so I suppose I know now why that was. I thought it was because I was silly enough to try a descent VSI formula someone on avcanada recommended. I will admit though that in a 172, it used to be a little tricky to come in at 110 kts, turn base abeam the threshold and still land on the numbers, so I used to just start descending in the downwind lol. I suppose that's cheating.

[Cat Driver]

A slip is just another tool for getting an airplane down on the ground; just like believe it or not, flaps. Personally, in a light single I'm far more likely to use a slip to lose altitude than full flaps. It's fast, it's efficient, and unless you're terribly ham fisted; it's completely safe.

The above is the bottom line in this conversation.

A pilot who understands good airmanship and one who wishes to remain not only proficient but improve on their airplane handling skills will keep proficient in their use of different slipping procedures, unless the use of slips are forbidden in the airplane operating manual.

Why is this even being argued?

It is basic stuff.

[KK7]

I think people look for standard recipes and rules to use when flying an airplane, but in reality no two situations are the same.

With respect to slips vs. flap, some situations will call for one thing, and others will call for another. If you have a plane load of passengers who aren't used to being in an airplane, and it is your job to give them a smooth comfortable ride, then why do a slip if you don't have to? But maybe you're going into a field, or are flying a type of aircraft where a slip is warranted, then you do it. If you have an empty airplane or a plane full of boxes, you're not going to make the air and cargo uncomfortable, so once again if the situation warrants it, do a slip. But outright saying slips should be done all the time or never, is just an outrageous statement that ignores reality.

Slips should be done when they need to be, and you shouldn't do a slip if the situation is such that it should be avoided.

Slips, whether they be side slips, forward slips or slipping turns, are very safe maneuvers, and in my opinion one of the safest that are covered in the PPL syllabus. Everyone should learn and practice this and keep it in their bag of tricks, because you never know someday when you might need to pull that trick out. This applies if you have an RPP, PPL, CPL or ATPL.

[shitdisturber]

A pilot who understands good airmanship and one who wishes to remain not only proficient but improve on their airplane handling skills will keep proficient in their use of different slipping procedures, unless the use of slips are forbidden in the airplane operating manual.

Why is this even being argued?

It is basic stuff.

Exactly!

[Cat Driver]

Everyone should learn and practice this and keep it in their bag of tricks, because you never know someday when you might need to pull that trick out.

With all due respect::::

Slipping flight is not a " trick ".

It is so basic it should have been completely taught and understood before the student ever starts to learn take off's and landings.

[trampbike]

Jeses H. crist.....the industry is truly screwed judging by what I read here.

I wouldn't let some of these instructors anywhere near any airplane I own.

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

Found on this scary and depressing thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60211

[trampbike]

Also:

i would prefer they add power first before lowering the nose, and yes they should overshoot. Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low.

[Cat Driver]

Unfortunately the chances of a " Retraining " business becoming successful would be very unlikely because one can not fix the training industry without approval from and the co-operation of TCCA's flight training gurus in Ottawa.

Of all the people out there in the Canada I would be the least likely to get co-operation from TCCA and even if they would support me they first must pay me the $200,000 they owe me from the legal battle I won against them.

Oh...and they owe me a FTU-OC.

Ignorance of flight training to the degree in the thread you linked is directly tied to TCCA as it they who approve of such ignorance, by licensing these people.

[Shiny Side Up]

Ignorance of flight training to the degree in the thread you linked is directly tied to TCCA as it they who approve of such ignorance, by licensing these people.

Unfortunately its gone even beyond that Cat, where not only does TC approve of such ignorance, but are actively in some cases promoting the wrong stuff. The worst part I feel is that due to the way TC works, those who are in there who would be considered uncorrupted - which still fortunately be considered the majority in my experience - have no power to fight the infection. The problem can only grow and get worse unless something drastic is done soon.

[Cat Driver]

those who are in there who would be considered uncorrupted - which still fortunately be considered the majority in my experience - have no power to fight the infection. The problem can only grow and get worse unless something drastic is done soon.

O.K. lets have a critical look at the above comment.

To be corrupted means one has compromised their basic values, be it morally or criminally.

If the allegations of incompetence or lack of quality control within the higher ranks of TCCA flight training standards is in fact a matter of concern especially should it, or could it effect safety then those who condone and support such a system have been corrupted.

The fear of loss of employment and their pension plans does not change the fact that enabling their managers is by default becoming corrupted.

On a more serious matter we have child molesters protected by the higher ups within some religious groups, it is all a matter of scale of corruption.

I truly feel my opinion is defend able, proof of which is I post openly and do not hide behind anonymity in this conversation.

[niss]

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

Found on this scary and depressing thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60211

liftwork.jpg (47.86 KiB) Viewed 1672 times

[AOW]

Jeses H. crist.....the industry is truly screwed judging by what I read here.

I wouldn't let some of these instructors anywhere near any airplane I own.

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

Found on this scary and depressing thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=60211

Also:

i would prefer they add power first before lowering the nose, and yes they should overshoot. Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low.

COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS
AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR

No. 0247

2005.08.24

Training and Checking Practices for Stall Recovery

INTRODUCTION

Recent stall and upset accidents of turbojet aeroplanes has reinforced the need for appropriate training for the prevention of an aeroplane stall and for stall recovery. This Commercial and Business Advisory Circular (CBAAC) applies to the training and checking practices for the approach to a stall and for stall recovery for aeroplanes. This CBAAC does not apply to the phenomenon of tail-plane stall, usually associated with flight in icing conditions.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this CBAAC is to provide guidance and recommendations to operators, for stall recovery training, with the goal of ensuring flight crews recognize early indications of an approach to a stall and apply the appropriate recovery actions to prevent an aeroplane from entering a stall or upset.

REFERENCES

Section 604.73 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) and Section 624.73 of the Private Operator Passenger Transportation Standards;

Standard 624 Schedule I - Pilot Proficiency Check (PPC) - Table of Requirements;

Section 702.76 of the CARs and Section 722.76 of the Commercial Air Service Standards (CASS);

Standard 722 Schedule I - PPC - Aeroplane;

Section 703.98 of the CARs and Section 723.98 of the CASS;

Standard 723 Schedule I - PPC;

Section 704.115 of the CARs and Section 724.115 of the CASS;

Standard 724 Schedule I - PPC - Synthetic Flight Training Device;

Standard 724 Schedule II - PPC - Aeroplane;

Section 705.124 of the CARs and Section 725.124 of the CASS;

Standard 725 Schedule I - PPC - Synthetic Flight Training Device;

Standard 725 Schedule II - PPC - Aeroplane;

Standard 725 Schedule II - PPC - Cruise Relief Pilot;

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 23-8A; Flight Test Guide for the Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, dated 2/9/89;

FAA AC 25-7A; Flight Test Guide for the Certification of Transport Category Airplanes, dated 3/31/98;

Flight Safety Foundation Accident Prevention; After Intentionally Stalling DC-8, Crew uses Incorrect Recovery Technique, Resulting in Uncontrolled Descent and Collision with Terrain, Vol. 54 No. 9, Sept 1997;

Handling the Big Jets, D.P. Davies, Third Edition, Civil Aviation Authority (U.K.), reprinted February 1988;

NASA Glenn Research Center Icing Branch; « Icing for Regional and Corporate Pilots » (Video); http://icebox.grc.nasa.gov/;

Transport Canada Safety and Security - Approved Check Pilot Manual 7th Edition - November 2004, Revision 2 (TP 6533E).
BACKGROUND

The CAR standards require that training for recovery from an approach to a stall be carried out, both where ground contact is imminent and where ground contact is not a factor. Many current training and checking practices typically assume that ground contact is imminent and have placed an emphasis on actions to minimize any altitude loss in a stall recovery.

For training and checking where ground contact is assumed to be imminent, a common practice is to approach a stall in level flight under prescribed conditions. Recovery is initiated by the application of maximum available engine thrust (or power) at the first indication of a stall while avoiding any altitude loss. Although a successful recovery may be possible at low altitudes, this technique may result in a stall at high altitude, during manoevering flight or during flight with icing contamination.

Wing Aerodynamic Stall

The wing stalls when it reaches an angle of attack, where increasing airflow separation results in a large loss of lift and an increase in drag. Airflow separation is often indicated by airframe buffeting and a reduction in controllability of the aircraft. However for some aircraft, the loss in lift is sudden and without any preceding buffet.

The stall angle of attack is normally constant for a given configuration, but for swept wing turbojet aeroplanes generally reduces as altitude increases, because of Mach effects. The stall angle of attack for all aeroplanes significantly reduces when the wing, particularly the leading edge, is contaminated with ice or other contaminants. The speed at which an aeroplane stalls is not constant, but is a function of weight and the maneuvering load factor. Increased weight and load factors will increase stall speeds for a given stall angle of attack.

Certification Requirements

Certification testing of aeroplanes attempts to ensure that there is stall warning with sufficient margin to prevent inadvertent stalling. For many aeroplanes this warning is provided by a system such as a stick shaker. Inherent in the certification requirements is the assumption that the pilot will take the correct action to prevent the stall.

Certification also requires that the stall characteristics be satisfactory. Where the natural aerodynamic stall characteristics do not meet the certification requirements, systems are required to either prevent the aerodynamic stall or to ensure satisfactory characteristics. Hence for some aeroplanes stick pushers have been introduced to abruptly pitch the aircraft nose down and reduce the angle of attack.

Stall Recovery

Effective stall recovery requires a deliberate and smooth reduction in wing angle of attack. The primary pitch control (elevator) is the most effective control for recovery from high angle of attack flight under all flight conditions. In some circumstances, an increase in engine thrust (or power) can be used at low altitude to accelerate an aircraft from a low speed condition without losing altitude. However, at the angle of attack associated with stall warning the aerodynamic drag is high and engine acceleration may be slow, especially if the initial thrust is at idle, thus extending the recovery. At higher altitude where available thrust is lower, acceleration without losing altitude may be impossible.

Failure to promptly reduce the wing angle of attack at stall warning can result in a continuing increase in wing angle of attack and a stall. Turbojet engines may experience surging or compressor stalls at high angles of attack because of inlet flow interuptions. Asymmetric lift associated with wing airflow separation or loss of thrust associated with engine inlet flow interuptions may result in a lateral-directional upset or possibly a spin. If a stall is allowed to develop, full nose down pitch inputs may be necessary to ensure a stall recovery. Recovery from a fully developed stall will likely result in a significant altitude loss.

The following are specific flight conditions where the current training practices may fail to achieve a recovery from an approach to a stall approach and result in a stall or upset:

Engine thrust may be insufficient for effective recovery at high altitudes, during flight with an engine inoperative, or when thrust is at idle. Turbojet engines normally require eight seconds to achieve go-around thrust from idle thrust at low altitudes. These values increase significantly at high altitudes;

If engines are already developing maximum thrust, such as during a take-off, a go-around or an engine inoperative climb, there will not be any additional thrust available to initiate a stall recovery using thrust;

Ice contamination can result in stall onset at lower angles of attack and an increase in stall speeds. Increased drag as a result of ice contamination may exceed the thrust (or power) available to maintain level flight. Failure to correctly operate ice protection systems in icing conditions, can result in an aerodynamic stall, which may preceed the stall warning provided by a stick shaker and preceed the protection provided by a stick pusher;

Stall entry during manoevering flight results in higher stall speeds due to load factor and higher deceleration rate than demonstrated during training.
During high altitude flight the stall angle of attack and associated level flight pitch attitude will be significantly lower than experienced at lower altitudes. Low speed Mach buffet may precede the indications of an approach to a stall. These indications are not normally experienced at the altitudes that stall training is typically conducted.

In all of the preceding cases, a prompt reduction in wing angle of attack is necessary to prevent the angle of attack from increasing and an aerodynamic stall from occuring. This requires that the primary pitch control (elevator) be used to initiate a stall recovery. The goal of minimizing altitude loss should be a secondary consideration, until a positive stall recovery has been assured.

Training for Fully Developed Stalls

Many current training practices do not demonstrate a full stall and associated handling characteristics. This may leave flight crews insufficently prepared to recognize and recover from of an aerodynamic stall, should the recovery actions from the approach to a stall, not be successful.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT/ACTION

This CBAAC provides recommendations for training and checking associated with approaches to a stall that are consistent with the Private Operator Passenger Transportation Standards, CASS and the Approved Check Pilot Manual. The primary goal of the following recommendations is to provide appropriate training so that flight crews can recognize the early indications of stall or low speed buffet and take appropriate action to avoid a stall or upset. The following training recommendations are not intended to be prescriptive, but are intended as a guide for the development of an operator's stall recovery training program.

Training organizations should review and amend their ground and flight training curriculum for stall recognition and recovery to ensure that the training is appropriate to the particular aeroplane type for forseeable flight conditions and configurations.

It is recommended the following ground, simulator, and where applicable, aeroplane training be undertaken for the initial type rating. The same training should also be conducted on the next recurrent, for those pilot's who have not been exposed to this training and recorded in the pilot's training records. Subsequent training, as required by the CARs should be conducted in accordance with these guidelines:

Recommended Ground Training

Stall and low speed buffet characteristics peculiar to the aeroplane type;

Operation and function of stall protection systems;

The hazards of overriding or ignoring stall protection system indications and/or operation;

Effects of icing and other contamination on stall characteristics and stall protection systems;

Operation and function of ice protection systems and any effects on stall protection systems;

Recommended recovery actions to apply at first indication of a stall (stall warning) and in the event of a stall;

The effects of various control inputs on stall recovery to include:

Primary pitch control and associated altitude loss that may be expected with the necessary nose down inputs;
Thrust (or power) control;
Aileron and rudder inputs for lateral/directional control;
Effect of speed brakes;
Requirement for disconnecting autopilots.

For aeroplanes equipped with a stick pusher, recommended recovery actions in response to stick pusher activation, including activation when in close proximity to the ground;

Avoidance of a secondary stall with particular emphasis on minimizing load factors during recovery;

Consideration of proximity to terrain and expected altitude loss during stall recoveries;

The necessity for smooth, deliberate and positive control inputs to avoid increasing load factors and secondary stalls. The need to avoid cyclical or oscillatory control inputs to prevent exceeding the structural limits of the aircraft should be emphasized.
Recommended Simulator and Aircraft Training

The following are recommended basic recovery inputs to first indications of a stall, with due considerations of aeroplane manufacturer's recommendations and for characteristics peculiar to specific aeroplane types:

Simultaneously:

Autopilot - disconnect (if not automatically disconnected at stall warning);

Pitch Control - positive pitch reduction as necessary to reduce wing angle of attack, and to accelerate the aircraft (increase airspeed);

Thrust (or Power) - apply maximum available;

Rudder - control yaw with care.
After the initial actions have been taken:

Speed brakes - ensure stowed;

Roll attitude - roll to wings level;

Pitch Control - as necessary to avoid recurrence of stall warning and to minimize the altitude loss, with due consideration of proximity to terrain;

Configuration - check appropriate. Some actions such as gear retraction increase drag during the gear retraction sequence and delay stall recovery;

Air Traffic Control (ATC) - advise ATC of any deviations after successful stall recovery is confirmed.
At all times handling of aircraft should be in a smooth, deliberate and positive manner. Avoid increasing load factors until a minimum manoevering speed has been achieved.

Recommended Simulator Training for recovery from an approach to a stall

Many current training practices typically complete stall training in three basic configurations of cruise, take-off and landing, while under one specific flight condition - eg. Level flight at 15,000 ft. It is recommended that training be conducted in the three existing configurations, but at appropriate flight conditions as follows:

Cruise - Entry in level flight should be conducted from an idle thrust setting and at least at 75% of the maximum certified altitude of the aircraft and at a weight appropriate to initial cruise following a maximum weight take-off. Emphasis for recovery should be on immediate angle of attack reduction using primary pitch control. Response of engines to thrust application should be observed.

Take-off - Entry should be made during a turning climb with an engine inoperative in a configuration, airspeed and thrust appropriate for a second segment climb. Aircraft weight should be at lease 75% of maximum take-off weight. Emphasis should be on use of pitch control for recovery (since thrust is at (or near) maximum available), and avoidance of lateral/directional loss of control.

Landing - Approach to stall at 500 ft above ground level or representative Minimum Descent Altitude over a runway at idle thrust and in landing configuration. Emphasis should be on prompt stall recovery and allowing any altitude loss as necessary to affect a stall recovery while avoiding any contact with terrain.
Note: The above training can be integrated into the simulator training program over various sessions, when the configuration is appropriate, rather than completing the training in one single session.

Recommended Simulator Training for recovery from full stall

Many flight training devices (simulators) have a limited ability to model high angle of attack flight conditions, associated with the stall angles of attack. However where a simulator is capable, a full stall should be entered to demonstrate the function of stall protection systems on aeroplanes, (such as stick pushers), the appropriate recovery actions to be applied, and the altitude loss associated with entry into a full stall.

Recovery inputs should be the same for a recovery from an approach to a stall with emphasis on the need for increased and sustained pitch control (elevator) inputs until the airspeed is increasing rapidly. The training should also emphasize the control inputs necessary for the prevention of a secondary stall.

Aeroplane-Only Training for Various Phases of Flight - Recommendations

Because of potential hazards associated with a stall, it is recommended that full aerodynamic stalls or stall entries causing the activation of the stick pusher be avoided during training. However, for recovery from approaches to stalls, the training should encourage a nose down pitch input as necessary, to promptly reduce the angle of attack, with due consideration for any associated altitude loss and terrain clearance. At no time should a goal of zero altitude loss be a criteria for successful demonstration of recovery from the initial indications of a stall. Should a stall be inadvertently entered, the recovery inputs from a full stall as specified above should be applied.

Any aeroplane only stall training should be conducted with due consideration to clearance from terrain and cloud. Aeroplane weight and balance should be within required limits, and a forward center of gravity position is recommended. Aircraft weight should be limited to ensure adequate performance for recovery from initial indications of a stall.

Recommended Checking Practices for stall recovery

Checking for stall training should be consistent with the preceding guidance. The primary goals of checking should be to ensure that appropriate pilot actions have been taken at the first indications of a stall. These goals should take precedence over the current emphasis placed for minimizing any altitude loss, when demonstrating approaches to a stall in level flight.

Some of the referenced CASS schedules for PPC have criteria, to provide relief from checking the approach to check for recoveries from an approach to a stall if successfully demonstrated during training. Use of the relief provisions should be encouraged to promote effective training and understanding of stall recoveries, and avoid prescriptive recovery actions for which the current checking practices may inadvertently encourage.

FUTURE DISPOSITION

This CBAAC will remain in effect until further notice.

Michel Gaudreau
Director
Commercial and Business Aviation

(emphasis is mine)

Approach to stall recovery is completely different from fully developed stall recovery!

[square]

Stall recoveries should depend on the airplane and the stage of stall. In a twin with tons of prop wash over the wing, if you're recovering at the first indication of a stall you should not be pushing the nose down and initiating a descent -- the application of power is enough to recover. Now, if you're already stalled in a light single you will have to push the nose down to break the stall. And in that case I would suggest maybe putting your coffee down so you can use both hands to apply some elevator while you add power at the same time rather than sit there worrying about an order of operations. Not sure why you thought you were scorching 767 so badly with that reference, the sooner you add power the less altitude you will lose and that is the goal.

[System Message]

Square, unless you are at the edge of the air I would strongly disagree that maintaining altitude is of more importance than reducing the angle of attack, unloading the wing, and breaking the stall and maintaining control of the aircraft.

[TopperHarley]

Lol, this thread is going to get side-tracked. When you're stalled, the "goal" is not to minimize altitude loss, it's to get un-stalled. You've stalled because you've exceeded the critical AOA. Your goal should be to reduce your AOA so you can regain control of the a/c.

Stall recognition and recovery are two very important subjects where training often gets overlooked. It appears crosswind landings do too

This is turning into a scary thread

[767]

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

I dont intend to go off topic with this thread, but

How about the following: (if you are a student, dont read)

When you stall, apply full back pressure, put the power to idle, and put the mixture idle cut off!

Hope your having a nice day

p.s. Thanks "square" for your post. I have changed the procedure after that thread. lower nose first! And i agree that it should depend on the aircraft type. Thanks again

[iflyforpie]

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

I dont intend to go off topic with this thread, but

How about the following: (if you are a student, dont read)

When you stall, apply full back pressure, put the power to idle, and put the mixture idle cut off!

Why shouldn't a student read that? A bit of a topic drift but that is pretty much how you do a soft-field landing... though usually you leave the mixture until you've at least left the runway....

[trey kule]

It has been quite a while since I had to do a ride with TC and demonstrate a stall, but one of the problems is TC people themselves confusing the approach to the stall with an actual stall, and emphasizing the minimum loss of altitude.
It is obvious from some of the posts here that many dont understand the whole idea of reducing the AOA, particularily when I read things like I would not lower the nose...good thinking. Get that firmly implanted in your brain, so if FSM forsaken, you ever do get into a low altitude stall and want with every bone in your body to pull up, it will just be a natural reaction for you...

Seems it does not matter how many people advise that you have to reduce the angle of attack, by lowering the nose..some people just dont get it...I truly hope none of you are instructors.

Many current training practices do not demonstrate a full stall and associated handling characteristics. This may leave flight crews insufficently prepared to recognize and recover from of an aerodynamic stall, should the recovery actions from the approach to a stall, not be successful.

An approach to stall, is the first sign of a stall..ie. horn, stick shaker, light. The only way that will progress to a stall is if people do not immediately reduce the AOA. (snap manoeuvers excepted) Good grief that is so basic, but then when I was doing remdial spin training with students, the whole concept of reducing the angle of attack in a spin by pushing the nose further down was lost on them...some did not even understand the concept of realtive airflow....and had been told by their insturctor...just let go of everything...yeah that will will work in a jet.

In any event, until the folks at TC and the DFTE's learn what it is all about, nothing is going to change, and we can look forward to more stall-spin accidents in the future.

[square]

It is obvious from some of the posts here that many dont understand the whole idea of reducing the AOA, particularily when I read things like I would not lower the nose...good thinking.

Seems it does not matter how many people advise that you have to reduce the angle of attack, by lowering the nose..some people just dont get it...I truly hope none of you are instructors.

I don't know if you're talking to me or not here, your post is vague on what comments you take issue with. But I can assure you that what I said is true and I'd be happy to demonstrate it. I do instruct and I've been instructed the same way, and demonstrated stall recoveries from the stick shaker in this fashion without losing a foot of altitude.

And to address the other VFR flight instructors in this thread who are talking about the holy act of pushing the nose down to reduce the AOA, yes, you are right that reducing the AOA is very important. A "stall recovery" could be equally described as "reducing the AOA" that much is clear to everyone I'm sure.

What I said was that in twin-engine airplanes with significant prop-wash, when you're flying IFR you do not want to push the nose down in IMC conditions to recover from a stall indication. You can recover from a stall indication without descending. By adding power, which throws air over the wings and hangs the airplane off the props. It may take 2 seconds longer than pointing the airplane at the centre of the earth but it keeps the airplane at or above it's MDA. Just something you will learn when you get one of the jobs most of you are applying for.

[trey kule]

You see , this is where I get all confused. when the stick starts to shake the aircraft is not stalled. that is an approach to the stall, and yes, you do have to reduce the angle of attack at that stage. Not much, usually, but you had better reduce it.
As to your mention of stall indications. Be clear exactly what you mean. Again, the onset of a horn , light etc. is an indiction of an impending stall. the wing has not stalled. If I recall correctly these devices usually come on in small aircraft about 4 to 8 kts above the stall speed, so at a 1 kt/sec deacelaration rate you have 4 to 8 seconds to respond with attiude and power to avoid a stall. No need to lose altitude in this situation. but be clear. the wing is not stalled.

But in every case..Everycase without exception, you have to reduce the angle of attack. And that does not mean necessarily pointing the nose towards the ground. If you think it does you simply dont understand the whole concept of relative airflow and critical angle.
If you can actually really stall a twin and recover without losing a foot of altitude you are a better pilot than me ( I caveat this by making it a 1 kt/sec deaceleraton rate and no final tug at the end) but if you are talking about recovering from an approach to stall then you need to rethink your terminology before you and any poor student you are teaching gets themselves in trouble.
there is a huge difference in what is happening to the airflow and center of pressure when the wing is actually reaches its critical angle of attack and a reduction in AOA is absolutely necessary.

Flying a 172 through a "stall" is a bit of a misnomer because of the aerodynamic design of the wing means only the inner protion really exceeds the critcial angle, so the wing is only partially stalled. You mentioned a stick shaker. A full stall with anything with a stick shaker usually is a bit interesting, but again, most pilots confuse the onset of a stick shaker with a stall.. And it is not so.

[System Message]

I have yet to see an aircraft which is not behind the power curve when the wing is stalled and is able to recover with power alone.

[AEROBAT]

Take the average pilot up in a plane that has no stall horn and get him/her to practice slow flight. 90% of the time they will fly until the plane is mushing and carry right through until it is actually stalled [much to their surprise].

Because of stall warning horns ect. they have never developed a feel for when the controls are losing authority, the blare of a horn or a blinking light on the dash has become their cue to "recover" when in reality the wing isn't even stalled. I think that is the reason you see so many people try to power their way out of an approach to a stall.

They actually cannot recognize the beginning of a stall without the help of a stall warning device.

[cdnpilot77]

If you needed even more motivation to start your retraining business, here is 767 recovery procedure of a stalled airplane with a wing drop:

I dont intend to go off topic with this thread, but

How about the following: (if you are a student, dont read)

When you stall, apply full back pressure, put the power to idle, and put the mixture idle cut off!

Hope your having a nice day

p.s. Thanks "square" for your post. I have changed the procedure after that thread. lower nose first! And i agree that it should depend on the aircraft type. Thanks again

Just curious where you learned your original technique and how many ppl's you have trained that are flying around our skies using this? Have you contacted them and re-trained them from your admitted errors or just letting them "figure it out"?

[TopperHarley]

What I said was that in twin-engine airplanes with significant prop-wash, when you're flying IFR you do not want to push the nose down in IMC conditions to recover from a stall indication. You can recover from a stall indication without descending. By adding power, which throws air over the wings and hangs the airplane off the props. It may take 2 seconds longer than pointing the airplane at the centre of the earth but it keeps the airplane at or above it's MDA. Just something you will learn when you get one of the jobs most of you are applying for.

As others are pointing out, a "stall indication" is not the same as an actual stall. The airplane is not yet stalled when the horn or stick-shaker activates. The effects of propwash on a twin are why the power-on stall IAS is lower than the power-off stall IAS.

Once you've stalled, you need to reduce the AOA to regain control. The only way to get unstalled is to reduce your AOA. You dont have to stuff the nose down as hard as possible. In some cases, all you have to do is relieve the back-pressure or gently lower the nose to regain control.

In your airplane POH or AFM, look up the stall recovery procedure. Im sure "lower the nose" or "reduce your AOA" is the first action before "add power." I can't imagine any airplane manual suggesting to add power without lowering the nose (whether IMC or not) as a recovery technique to an actual stall.