Stall training during PPL

[francisco collazos]

I was just thinking about this as I read about another suspect stall/spin during base to final. The nature of stalls that I learned during my PPL training don't seem to coincide with the types of stall accidents that I read about. The power off stall especially doesn't seem relevant at all with the type of stalls seen. It seems that it would make more sense to train accelerated stalls since (correct me if i'm wrong here) those are what kill people in the pattern.

Any opinions on this? I asked my instructor to take me up and practice these but never got a chance to since he moved shortly after I received my PPL.

 

[GeorgeC]

A coordinated accelerated stall won't result in a spin.

Watch the first 1:30 of this:

 

[Tantalum]

Unfortunately I think the quality of the training depends heavily on who you have as an instructor. There are a lot of instructors out there purely filling hours until they can go work for an airline.. many are satisfied with passing on the bare minimum amount of rote knowledge

Stalls, engine failures, and partial panel are generally not well taught IMHO

Engines don't generally catastrophically quit altogether, you will lose oil pressure, you will have a stuck valve, you'll have something running rough.. "full rich carb heat on" is not always the solution

Stalls that happen in real life don't have a long and careful lead-up preparation as they do in training. It happens in a partial power scenario where you screwed up your turn and you're trying to cheat that base to final leg and completely lose track of your airspeed with a dirty plane. The nose drops people panic pull up and spiral it in

In real life instruments don't fail with a nice sticky note on it. You will gradually lose vacuum pressure as your gyro slowly precesses away, you follow it in IMC until you're in a death spiral too late to recover not understanding why the turn coordinator and a directional gyro are going crazy

It's sad.

It's imperative that people find a good instructor that will pass on good understanding of flight, not just rote tips

 

[Tantalum]

A coordinated accelerated stall won't result in a spin.

Watch the first 1:30 of this:

I think what OP is trying to accomplish though is a more realistic stall scenario that's not sitting there in level flight at 4,500 ft gradually waiting for the wing to stall

 

[TommyG]

Any CFI can and should teach accelerated stalls. Just because it’s not part of the ACS doesn’t mean it can’t be covered. As a CFI the ACS is just the baseline of what I teach, I usually go way beyond the ACS into real world scenarios.

 

[ateamer]

Power off stalls teach you to fly final at the correct speed and flare for a good landing.

 

[PaulS]

Practicing stalls is great, it should be second nature, no thought required to recover from the stall and a fix a wing drop during the stall. The other thing that should be second nature is not getting slow and always staying coordinated in the pattern.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

It happens in a partial power scenario where you screwed up your turn and you're trying to cheat that base to final leg and completely lose track of your airspeed with a dirty plane.

I have misjudged the base to final turn more than once particularly at night with an unfamiliar airport.
It is easy enough to ask for a 270 deg turn which tower has never given me any grief over.
I feel silly for misjudging the initial base to final but coming out of the 270 turn, I feel much more comfortable not trying to force a bad approach.

 

[Tantalum]

I have misjudged the base to final turn more than once particularly at night with an unfamiliar airport.
It is easy enough to ask for a 270 deg turn which tower has never given me any grief over.
I feel silly for misjudging the initial base to final but coming out of the 270 turn, I feel much more comfortable not trying to force a bad approach.

I think you hit the nail on the head with not trying to force a bad approach. And holistically discussing the whole base to final stall spin and going one step backwards on the accident chain it's more about understanding when that turn is no longer an option

Problem is, you cheat it once, cheat it twice, you get used to getting uncoordinated with the rudder and getting slow until someday it bites you

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

Oh did my instructor teach those accelerated stalls, some even at full power. Scared the hell out of me and he said we keep doing them until I'm comfortable with it and can recover from them safely.

 

[Tantalum]

Did he gradually increase the angle of attack during the turn until it broke or was it a quick yank and pop?

Have seen accelerated stalls taught each way.

 

[brcase]

I was just thinking about this as I read about another suspect stall/spin during base to final. The nature of stalls that I learned during my PPL training don't seem to coincide with the types of stall accidents that I read about. The power off stall especially doesn't seem relevant at all with the type of stalls seen. It seems that it would make more sense to train accelerated stalls since (correct me if i'm wrong here) those are what kill people in the pattern.

Any opinions on this? I asked my instructor to take me up and practice these but never got a chance to since he moved shortly after I received my PPL.

I think there is a lot that goes on in these kinds of accidents that is very difficult to simulate and teach.
I think the main points are..
Distraction
Illusion
and Surprise.

Distraction, Seem Obvious, but is probably the hardest to combat since by definition you aren't thinking stall when it happens. The pilot is concentrating on an emergency, another aircraft, repositioning the aircraft to where they want it so they let the Airspeed and coordination, or some other distraction. Distraction also tends mean the pilot isn't paying attention to or noticed airspeed, Stall Warnings, or Skidding turns.

Illusion, Below 1000 you start getting illusion of speed, especially when flying down wind. Turns also start to look different, Read up on pivotal altitude thing about how you might position the controls to make a low altitude turn look like a high altitude turn (Hint, it results in a skidding turn) So the pilot thinks the are fast and in a normal turn, when in reality they are in a slow skidding turn. This seem unlikely until you experience this illusion of speed with ground coming up at you.

Surprise, The wind drops and the pilot isn't thinking Stall due to Distraction or Illusion, So they do the normal control input of increase aileron and Elevator, instead of the Stall recovery procedure of reducing Aileron and Elevator and using the Rudder. I have had two different students put me into a spin from slow flight, They went to full aileron and full up elevator which just made the airplane just continue a steep descending turn, until they asked me how to recover. Most airplanes will recover during the incipient phase of a spin with just forward elevator. An NTSB report I read once the pilot reported "I thought Elevator cable Broke"

I think the FAA has the right we really need to focus on prevention. Recognize the situation that can cause a dangerous stall, spin entry and either be prepared or avoid them. When I practice emergency procedures or any non standard low altitude maneuvering (<1000ft) I am say out loud that I am not going to stall and pay attention to airspeed and the stall warning specifically.

The Overshoot to final is a common theme in these discussions , and many instructor teach to avoid steep turns. My opinion I think this is counter productive and I recommend pilots try this (with an instructor) at altitude. If you watch most stall Spin accident Videos the wing usually breaks from a relatively shallow bank angle. I think the steep turn myth is caused by inaccurately describing a turn. Things get said like "The Stall Speed goes up 40% in with 60 degree bank" which is only accurate in one rather unlikely scenario, a level 2G turn. Most steeper turns in the pattern are a descending turn and well under 2G's. A well known mountain instructor I know says bank as steep as you need, just don't "load up the wing" i.e. Don't pull on the elevator.
An interesting phenomenon that I haven't been able to explain about accelerated stalls. It seems to me that the airspeed spread between the Stall Warning and the actual stall increases a lot during an accelerated stall. The commercial accelerated stall maneuver is easy to demonstrate in most aircraft because the maneuver ends at the 1st indication of stall which is the stall warning. I recommend trying this maneuver to the 1st Aerodynamic indication of stall (a few older airplanes don't have stall warnings) and see how hard it is to actually stall from 45 degree bank turn let alone spin out of one.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[sarangan]

I was just thinking about this as I read about another suspect stall/spin during base to final. The nature of stalls that I learned during my PPL training don't seem to coincide with the types of stall accidents that I read about. The power off stall especially doesn't seem relevant at all with the type of stalls seen. It seems that it would make more sense to train accelerated stalls since (correct me if i'm wrong here) those are what kill people in the pattern.

Any opinions on this? I asked my instructor to take me up and practice these but never got a chance to since he moved shortly after I received my PPL.

Accelerated stalls and uncoordiated stalls are indeed taught during primary training, at least they should be. However, there is still a problem with how stalls and spins are taught. How a stall looks close to the ground is very different than how it looks at higher altitudes. When you have trees and obstacles in front of you, the unusual pitch attitude won't look so unusual. To have real value, you would have to do stalls and spins at low altitudes, which is obviously not safe. Similarly, emergency off-airport landings as well as 180 turn back to the runway should be taught at low altitudes, which are also unsafe. Doing these at higher altitudes and then discussing what they may look like at low altitudes is the best we can do.

 

[Dean Champion]

I was just thinking about this as I read about another suspect stall/spin during base to final. The nature of stalls that I learned during my PPL training don't seem to coincide with the types of stall accidents that I read about. The power off stall especially doesn't seem relevant at all with the type of stalls seen. It seems that it would make more sense to train accelerated stalls since (correct me if i'm wrong here) those are what kill people in the pattern.

Any opinions on this? I asked my instructor to take me up and practice these but never got a chance to since he moved shortly after I received my PPL.

I understand where you are comming from. In my opinion stall recovery in all attitudes is crucial. The power off stall can happen at final approach and ruinm your day!

 

[MauleSkinner]

One problem with inadvertent stalls is we don’t have inadvertent stalls while we’re waiting for them and/or making them happen. They happen when we’re focused on something else. Stall recovery needs to be reflexive, and the only way I know to get to that point is to do hundreds of them. The Law of Exercise (actually, I think it’s merely a Principle now) doesn’t occur when you just do enough to pass the checkride, even if you do the same checkride twice a year every year.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I think the steep turn myth is caused by inaccurately describing a turn. Things get said like "The Stall Speed goes up 40% in with 60 degree bank" which is only accurate in one rather unlikely scenario, a level 2G turn. Most steeper turns in the pattern are a descending turn and well under 2G's. A well known mountain instructor I know says bank as steep as you need, just don't "load up the wing" i.e. Don't pull on the elevator.

I think I see a misconception there. The airplane is at 1G in straight-ahead level flight, or in a straight-ahead steady descent or climb. In the turn the load factor rises, whether climbing or descending or flying level. The ONLY way to "unload " the wing is to allow the descent rate to increase steadily, and that just results in a spiral dive, not a safe descending turn. Just because the airplane is descending on that base-to-final turn does not mean that the descent is making it any safer. It isn't.

The classic wing-unloading is done when training astronauts. A transport aircraft carries them to altitude, where a climb is initiated that transitions to a zero-G condition by pushing the nose over so that the airplane describes an arc. That arc has to keep going until the airplane is descending vertically to maintain the zero-G, which is not going to happen, so they have to pull out before the recovery might break something. The instant they stop the increase in descent rate, the G load returns even if the airplane is still descending at a steady rate.

 

[SkyChaser]

One problem with inadvertent stalls is we don’t have inadvertent stalls while we’re waiting for them and/or making them happen. They happen when we’re focused on something else. Stall recovery needs to be reflexive, and the only way I know to get to that point is to do hundreds of them. The Law of Exercise (actually, I think it’s merely a Principle now) doesn’t occur when you just do enough to pass the checkride, even if you do the same checkride twice a year every year.

That is a really good point. When I was doing my unusual attitudes training, my instructor put us into a stall - she trimmed the nose way up, pulled the power way back (don't remember if it was to idle or not), and just let it hang there long enough that when she said, "alright, look up and recover!", the plane was just beginning to stall. Because that was the last thing I expected her to have done, it took half a second to realize what she'd done and to start correcting it, even though I was really good and fast at recovering from stalls that I was expecting. And I also got a good warning of how hard it is to push against nose-up trim, because that was hard!

 

[dtuuri]

A well known mountain instructor I know says bank as steep as you need, just don't "load up the wing" i.e. Don't pull on the elevator.

If you don't "load up the wing", you'll need to bank steeper than you need to.

 

[luvflyin]

I was just thinking about this as I read about another suspect stall/spin during base to final. The nature of stalls that I learned during my PPL training don't seem to coincide with the types of stall accidents that I read about. The power off stall especially doesn't seem relevant at all with the type of stalls seen. It seems that it would make more sense to train accelerated stalls since (correct me if i'm wrong here) those are what kill people in the pattern.

Any opinions on this? I asked my instructor to take me up and practice these but never got a chance to since he moved shortly after I received my PPL.

They happen when you’re in a bank. In a bank, the plane stalls at a higher airspeed(I get the it’s angle of attack thing, but that happens generally at higher airspeeds in a bank.) Stalls happening at a higher airspeed than when wings level is the definition of accelerated stall. So yeah, training in stalling in a bank should be valuable.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That is a really good point. When I was doing my unusual attitudes training, my instructor put us into a stall - she trimmed the nose way up, pulled the power way back (don't remember if it was to idle or not), and just let it hang there long enough that when she said, "alright, look up and recover!", the plane was just beginning to stall. Because that was the last thing I expected her to have done, it took half a second to realize what she'd done and to start correcting it, even though I was really good and fast at recovering from stalls that I was expecting. And I also got a good warning of how hard it is to push against nose-up trim, because that was hard!

I have a flight review to a friend in his Debonair. Had him doing slow flight with the stall warning chirping intermittently. I said, “ok, now do a steep turn in slow flight.” Not only was the look on his face priceless, but he stalled the airplane, a wing dropped, and I got to see a nice recovery.

 

[dmspilot]

I think I see a misconception there. The airplane is at 1G in straight-ahead level flight, or in a straight-ahead steady descent or climb. In the turn the load factor rises, whether climbing or descending or flying level. The ONLY way to "unload " the wing is to allow the descent rate to increase steadily, and that just results in a spiral dive, not a safe descending turn. Just because the airplane is descending on that base-to-final turn does not mean that the descent is making it any safer. It isn't.

I've gotten into more arguments than I can remember trying to say the same thing. I even did the math proving that a descending 1g turn in a 45 degree bank will reach thousands of FPM in a matter of seconds. People still don't want to believe it.

 

[PaulS]

That is a really good point. When I was doing my unusual attitudes training, my instructor put us into a stall - she trimmed the nose way up, pulled the power way back (don't remember if it was to idle or not), and just let it hang there long enough that when she said, "alright, look up and recover!", the plane was just beginning to stall. Because that was the last thing I expected her to have done, it took half a second to realize what she'd done and to start correcting it, even though I was really good and fast at recovering from stalls that I was expecting. And I also got a good warning of how hard it is to push against nose-up trim, because that was hard!

Wait until you are banked 30 degrees, nose up 15 degrees, low power, airspeed diving with the auto pilot on when they say to look up. Takes a second figure it out.

 

[francisco collazos]

I even did the math proving that a descending 1g turn in a 45 degree bank will reach thousands of FPM in a matter of seconds. People still don't want to believe it.

IDK why people wouldn't believe it seems like it's the procedure for a steep descent.

What is interesting is that practicing power off 180 is similar to steep turns in the pattern..no?

 

[unsafervguy]

They happen when you’re in a bank. In a bank, the plane stalls at a higher airspeed(I get the it’s angle of attack thing, but that happens generally at higher airspeeds in a bank.) Stalls happening at a higher airspeed than when wings level is the definition of accelerated stall. So yeah, training in stalling in a bank should be valuable.

the way you stated that is not true. in a bank the plane stalls at a higher airspeed is not true, that is only true for a level turn. the higher stall speed is causes by the increase in load factor. in a 1g descending turn the stall speed will be the same. the aircraft does not know it in a turn unless you are looking at it in a frame of reference to the ground. in the frame of reference to the ether,the plane only knows its at 1g. however, as pointed out earlier, a 1g descending turn turns into a very high descent rate very quickly that cause other problems to correct.

 

[dmspilot]

IDK why people wouldn't believe it

the way you stated that is not true. in a bank the plane stalls at a higher airspeed is not true, that is only true for a level turn.

Sigh.

 

[dmspilot]

You know I've done 4,000 fpm descents in the jet. Amazingly the pax didn't all stick to the ceiling. I wonder how...

 

[unsafervguy]

Sigh.

well thought out and expressed answer.

 

[dmspilot]

well thought out and expressed answer.

Dan Thomas already explained it.

 

[unsafervguy]

You know I've done 4,000 fpm descents in the jet. Amazingly the pax didn't all stick to the ceiling. I wonder how

and i bet you did not do it at 1000 feet and used a couple of thousand feet to reduce the decent rate. watch how fast an airbus will increase vertical speed in a open decent, spoilers out, on autopilot all while flying using control law base on load factor and roll rate.

 

[francisco collazos]

and i bet you did not do it at 1000 feet and used a couple of thousand feet to reduce the decent rate. watch how fast an airbus will increase vertical speed in a open decent, spoilers out, on autopilot all while flying using control law base on load factor and roll rate.

On a related note...has anyone ever seen the globemaster C-17 tactical descent with thrust reversers?

 

[Baked Potato]

Benefit from low cost simulators maybe? I ask as I do not know if low cost simulators actually teach anything that actually translates into benefit while flying.
For example, the Redbird TD2 which is FAA approved as a Basic Aviation Training Device and costs slight under $10k. Would this allow teaching and learning actual benefit of scenarios which would generally be considered unsafe to intentionally fly in real life training?

I'm a low hour student who has thousands of hours in various flight simulators, as that has been a hobby for about 15 years. And a lot of that time has been in vintage military planes with flight characteristics that are much less forgiving than a 172, for example. My first real flight was last summer.

I hope I'm not jinxing myself by saying this, and end up in a news article in a couple of years, but from the very first stall that I did with a CFI, my stall recovery reflexes kicked in immediately. I know that I am generally at 3,000 - 4,000 feet when practicing these, but the instinct to pitch down for airspeed and use opposite rudder was definitely ingrained in me even before my first real flight.

 

[dmspilot]

and i bet you did not do it at 1000 feet and used a couple of thousand feet to reduce the decent rate. watch how fast an airbus will increase vertical speed in a open decent, spoilers out, on autopilot all while flying using control law base on load factor and roll rate.

Not sure how what point you're trying to make.

The point was the mere act of being in a descent doesn't reduce load factor.

You can descend at 1,000fpm or 4,000fpm or 8,000fpm and the load factor doesn't decrease just because you're not level.

A 45 degree bank in a 1,000fpm decent results in the same load factor as a level turn.

 

[unsafervguy]

Not sure how what point you're trying to make.

The point was the mere act of being in a descent doesn't reduce load factor.

You can descend at 1,000fpm or 4,000fpm or 8,000fpm and the load factor doesn't decrease just because you're not level.

A 45 degree bank in a 1,000fpm decent results in the same load factor as a level turn.

that is exactly what i said in post 25, load factor does not increase do to bank angle except in level flight.

the problem is all this discussion is trying to reduce the physics to a simple level, its not that simple. load factor is simply lift/weight correct? weight is mass X acceleration. so you have 1=lift/mass X acceleration. so to descend you must reduce the vertical component of lift. so you are at 1g level, constant speed and you push over what happens? lift produced by the wing is the same, gravity stays the same, and mass stays the same. so the only thing in that equation that can change is load right. so the dynamic state is a negative load. so how do we get that to a one g decent? we change a different variable in the equation. we reduce the vertical component of lift by reducing power which changes the lift equation, and the load factor stays the same. this is where it gets complicated when you start doing the fluid dynamics computations of lift because the definition of lift. thats where dans description of the parabolic comes in, when you start taking in the lift equations.

so whats my point? that the statement on bank angle increases load factor is not true. that only applies in a level turn.

 

[dmspilot]

that is exactly what i said in post 25, load factor does not increase do to bank angle except in level flight.

A 45 degree bank in a 1,000fpm decent results in the same load factor as a level turn.

You are saying the total opposite of what I am saying.

I literally just said level turn = descending turn, and you think I'm agreeing with you? Not only does your understanding of load factor suck, so does your reading comprehension.

the statement on bank angle increases load factor is not true. that only applies in a level turn.

Wrong.

 

[luvflyin]

the way you stated that is not true. in a bank the plane stalls at a higher airspeed is not true, that is only true for a level turn. the higher stall speed is causes by the increase in load factor. in a 1g descending turn the stall speed will be the same. the aircraft does not know it in a turn unless you are looking at it in a frame of reference to the ground. in the frame of reference to the ether,the plane only knows its at 1g. however, as pointed out earlier, a 1g descending turn turns into a very high descent rate very quickly that cause other problems to correct.

Yeah. I get that now after reading through the thread

 

[unsafervguy]

You are saying the total opposite of what I am saying.

I literally just said level turn = descending turn, and you think I'm agreeing with you? Not only does your understanding of load factor suck, so does your reading comprehension.



Wrong.[/QUOTE

i guess physics and math are wrong then. because the equations do not support what you said.

 

[Brad W]

I agree with the OP.
Not just stalls...but stalls are a great example. We are really taught to demonstrate getting into a stall...in a very calm 1 G sort of way. Often it's just demonstrating almost stalling.
and then we repeat these again and again...with every rental checkout and every flight review, etc.... year after year

wrote procedure:

1. Climb and clear. Climb to an altitude not less than 1,500 feet agl, and perform clearing turns in each direction. ...
2. Slow to rotation speed. ...
3. Add power. ...
4. Induce stall. ...
5. Keep that ball centered with rudder. ...
6. Break and recover.

I can remember doing actual accelerated stalls a few times..... but not very many!

and we did spins many times in my training but that too was just wrote procedure and not "real world" application.

Seems to me the way we do it is the sort of thing that would be practiced a handful of times with a brand new student just to show the theory of stall in simple terms....and then really NEVER AGAIN.
What we should do instead is demo and practice in the more complex "real world" situations......use capable trainers and actually demonstrate actual real world situations such as the base to final turn (at higher altitude of course)..... let it actually and fully depart when it's not expected. We should be doing that over and over.....

 

[Ed Haywood]

This is where I repeat my biweekly post recommending that all new PPL's go get some basic aerobatics training.

It is one thing to talk about the theory of steep turns. It is another to actually roll into an 80 degree bank and pull 3.5G to keep the turn level, or ease off the stick and watch the altitude decrease and airspeed increase.

Immelmans in a low power aircraft like a Citabria or Decathlon are fantastic for developing a feel for stalls. When you roll upright at the top of the half loop, you will often be at or below stall speed. If you are too aggressive trying to hold level flight, the airplane will just fall out of the sky. Gotta relax the stick and feel for the plane to begin flying. (Note this will not be the case if you get your training in an overpowered aircraft like an Extra.)

And of course there is no substitute for doing a dozen spins with recovery within 5 degrees of desired heading to take the mystery out of that event.

 

[unsafervguy]

I believe that to be blatantly false.

for those that need pictures.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bar...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:3eb58595,vid:f0eHreR6gZU

notice that the g forces go up during the pitch up and level out maxing at 2.8 g that is pure pitch induced load factor, once he starts the roll and reduces the pitch forces the load factor drops down throughout the roll until he ads pitch force to stop the resultant nose low recovery.

 

[dmspilot]

i guess physics and math are wrong then. because the equations do not support what you said.

YOUR physics and math are wrong. The equations do not support your claim.