Like Troy said, since stalls aren't passenger friendly, I don't practice them nearly as often as I used to when I was actively instructing. I love stalls and loved teaching them, all the way to the break. None of this recovery from the first indication of a stall bs I'd see coming from some of the flight schools. With the the addition of the Vgs recently, it gave me a good reason to go out and do some stalls both before and after the install, which was good for me.

Which brings up the point that if you're actively flight instructing, you need to read and comment on to the FAA the new ACS requirements for stall demonstration.....it sucks.

MTV

mtv wrote:Which brings up the point that if you're actively flight instructing, you need to read and comment on to the FAA the new ACS requirements for stall demonstration.....it sucks.

MTV

I guess I'm not seeing that stall demo requirements are all that bad other than the minimal bank angles of only 20 degrees +/- 10 degrees (which seems to allow pretty sloppy banking and is less than typical pattern banks), but the slow flight demo really sucks. Instead of the old way, in which slow flight meant that the airspeed was slow enough that the stall warner was on and that any pitch increase would induce a stall, now it's "...maintain an airspeed, approximately 5-10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning." Since stall warners typically activate about 7-8 knots above the 1G stall speed, that really means that the slow flight demo is nowhere near the slowest airspeed that the airplane can be flown--not a very good demo of the pilot's ability to maintain slow flight, IMHO.

Cary

Cary wrote:

mtv wrote:Which brings up the point that if you're actively flight instructing, you need to read and comment on to the FAA the new ACS requirements for stall demonstration.....it sucks.

MTV

I guess I'm not seeing that stall demo requirements are all that bad other than the minimal bank angles of only 20 degrees +/- 10 degrees (which seems to allow pretty sloppy banking and is less than typical pattern banks), but the slow flight demo really sucks. Instead of the old way, in which slow flight meant that the airspeed was slow enough that the stall warner was on and that any pitch increase would induce a stall, now it's "...maintain an airspeed, approximately 5-10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning." Since stall warners typically activate about 7-8 knots above the 1G stall speed, that really means that the slow flight demo is nowhere near the slowest airspeed that the airplane can be flown--not a very good demo of the pilot's ability to maintain slow flight, IMHO.

Cary

Yeah, my bad, slow flight demo is what I was meaning to say. I'm in the process of writing to the powers that be to protest this portion of the new ACS.

MTV

mtv wrote:

Cary wrote:

mtv wrote:Which brings up the point that if you're actively flight instructing, you need to read and comment on to the FAA the new ACS requirements for stall demonstration.....it sucks.

MTV

I guess I'm not seeing that stall demo requirements are all that bad other than the minimal bank angles of only 20 degrees +/- 10 degrees (which seems to allow pretty sloppy banking and is less than typical pattern banks), but the slow flight demo really sucks. Instead of the old way, in which slow flight meant that the airspeed was slow enough that the stall warner was on and that any pitch increase would induce a stall, now it's "...maintain an airspeed, approximately 5-10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning." Since stall warners typically activate about 7-8 knots above the 1G stall speed, that really means that the slow flight demo is nowhere near the slowest airspeed that the airplane can be flown--not a very good demo of the pilot's ability to maintain slow flight, IMHO.

Cary

Yeah, my bad, slow flight demo is what I was meaning to say. I'm in the process of writing to the powers that be to protest this portion of the new ACS.

MTV

Here's the text of an email I just sent to the FAA, to make my comments:

I have spent some time reading the new ACS, and as a former instructor, I vehemently disagree with the newly published standards for slow flight (ref: page 54, Skills, paragraph 2), which reads:
2. Establish and maintain an airspeed, approximately 5-10 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning.

In my opinion, the 5-10 knots cushion and the language "without activating a stall warning" are mistakes, as they eliminate a demonstration of minimum controllable airspeed. Current aircraft certification standards result in stall warnings activating at about 7-8 knots above the level 1G stall speed. To avoid activating the stall warner in any kind of banked turn means that the aircraft will have to be flown some 10-15 knots faster than the airspeed at which the stall warner activates in straight and level flight.

For instance, if a Cessna 172 stalls at 49 knots in level flight, it's warner comes on at about 56 knots. So the pilot would then fly at a few knots faster, say 60 knots, to avoid activating the warner in level flight in even the slightest turbulence. But then in a shallow bank, maintaining that same airspeed, the warner will activate. Presumably that means that the evaluator would have to disqualify the applicant.

Further, the language of the ACS conflicts with the language in Chapter 4 of the Airplane Flying Handbook respecting slow flight, which states:
(2) maneuvering at the slowest airspeed at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without indications of a stall—usually 3 to 5 knots above stalling speed.

"Indications of a stall" has been traditionally taught as aerodynamic indications, i.e., buffeting, sloppy controls, etc., not when the stall warner first comes on.

If instructors then teach to the ACS, which many do, they'll be teaching slow flight which is much faster than it should be, and which does not teach the student the feel of the controls at only "3 to 5 knots above stalling speed." The end result will be pilots who can pass the ACS but who aren't familiar with the feel of the airplane in its slowest speed regimes. This flies in the face of the FAA's published goal of reducing loss of control incidents.

I therefore urge the FAA to change the language of the ACS to read,
2. Establish and maintain an airspeed, approximately 3-5 knots above the 1G stall speed, at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without an aerodynamic indication of a stall.

Thank you for your consideration.


The appropriate email address is [email protected].

Cary

I agree with MTV's comments on being precise in your definition of the maneuver... especially to yourself. If not clear a student WILL mis-understand the event.

As for the new ACS standards... heck I don't even like the old PTS. As far as I'm concerned the PTS/ACS is NOT the standard by which a good pilot should compare himself. It is the MINIMUM standard for passing an FAA checkride. When I am instructing someone to take such a checkride we spend time on the proscribed standards, hopefully my instruction has surpassed those minimum standards. When I am instructing someone on how to fly, or reach proficiency with a BFR, I concentrate on what I think is important.

For instance the proposed stall event by AKT. I would never demo or have a student initiate a maneuver like a stall at 1500' agl..... 3000' is more like it, 5k' is better. And other than teaching for a FAA standard I prefer to have the student gain a understanding of Boundary Layer... its detachment and reattachment. If the student doesn't get a feel for the BL... we'll do a series of stalls with one setup (one reason to initiate the series much higher AGL). I want them to know and recognize the stall break and what constitutes flying again (often the series is done without adding power at all... remember the idea is to see/FEEL what the BL is doing over the wing).

In my opinion ALL of the PTS/ACS leads a student into a FALSE perception of what a stall is in particular, where it is likely to occur and how to recover from it. Standard Power-off, Power-on, Approach or Departure stalls DO NOT teach a student how to recover from a stall in an unexpected phase of flight. The most likely fatal encounter with a stall is in the traffic pattern maneuvering while distracted (overshooting winds, traffic, etc), or maneuvering near the ground. Getting the airplane flying again MUST be muscle memory when you have a VERY small margin to survive.

Of course Your Mileage May Vary... and opinions are like..... so this is my nickel on the grass.

gunny

Well said MTV, Cary, and Gunny,

Cary, ask them if they have read the first three chapters of "Stick and Rudder " lately.

Gunny wrote:I agree with MTV's comments on being precise in your definition of the maneuver... especially to yourself. If not clear a student WILL mis-understand the event.

As for the new ACS standards... heck I don't even like the old PTS. As far as I'm concerned the PTS/ACS is NOT the standard by which a good pilot should compare himself. It is the MINIMUM standard for passing an FAA checkride. When I am instructing someone to take such a checkride we spend time on the proscribed standards, hopefully my instruction has surpassed those minimum standards. When I am instructing someone on how to fly, or reach proficiency with a BFR, I concentrate on what I think is important.

For instance the proposed stall event by AKT. I would never demo or have a student initiate a maneuver like a stall at 1500' agl..... 3000' is more like it, 5k' is better. And other than teaching for a FAA standard I prefer to have the student gain a understanding of Boundary Layer... its detachment and reattachment. If the student doesn't get a feel for the BL... we'll do a series of stalls with one setup (one reason to initiate the series much higher AGL). I want them to know and recognize the stall break and what constitutes flying again (often the series is done without adding power at all... remember the idea is to see/FEEL what the BL is doing over the wing).

In my opinion ALL of the PTS/ACS leads a student into a FALSE perception of what a stall is in particular, where it is likely to occur and how to recover from it. Standard Power-off, Power-on, Approach or Departure stalls DO NOT teach a student how to recover from a stall in an unexpected phase of flight. The most likely fatal encounter with a stall is in the traffic pattern maneuvering while distracted (overshooting winds, traffic, etc), or maneuvering near the ground. Getting the airplane flying again MUST be muscle memory when you have a VERY small margin to survive.

Of course Your Mileage May Vary... and opinions are like..... so this is my nickel on the grass.

gunny

I agree with you completely, and I do the same. That said, the problem I see is what i call "inbreeding" in flight training organizations. Here's what I mean:

Flight school A is brand new and is doing a great job training new students to fly, offering the private, commercial, and flight instructor certificates. A benefit the school offers is that they'll hire almost any student who trains with them and completes the CFI course there. Now, that new CFI, who learned how to fly at that school, and has NO outside experience in what we consider the "real world" of flying, is teaching the next generation of private pilots, and ultimately, flight instructors.

At some point in this evolution, some bright eyes decides it's a cool idea to start announcing over the radio when returning to their (uncontrolled field) the following: "Home base traffic Warrior November blah, blah, blah, blah is ten miles east, inbound for landing, Any traffic please advise". Other CFIs there think this is a cool idea, and they adopt the same practice.....and they teach their students. Pretty soon, this VERY busy school is cranking out hundreds of graduates per year, and they are all using this practice.

In fact, it gets to be so ubiquitous that the FAA finally has to issue a Notice to Airmen that this practice is NOT acceptable, and should NEVER be used.

Inbreeding has spread what someone thought was a good idea, but what is in fact a really bad idea widely.

Now, consider this little story, but insert the term "Stall" or "Slow Flight" in there in place of the radio announcement. Since flight training programs HAVE to teach to the PTS/ACS, because students are shoveling tons of money out to get the CERTIFICATE. The schools run a serious risk if they insert this "Well, THAT's what the ACS requires, but here's the way we'd REALLY like you to perform this" kind of stuff. Sorry, but in a large flight school operation, you simply have to standardize.

Try teaching something contrary to the ACS in a Part 141 program, and it WILL bite you. I did so at our program, but in the Cub, which was not part of the 141 program, and the FAA didn't worry too much what we did in that plane. But, the required courses....those MUST follow the ACS precisely.

That, to me is the problem......and as a result, you're going to be generating a next generation of pilots who have no idea what actual slow flight is. And, that's scary to me.

MTV

1 more thing to add to your whiteboard, AKTahoe. You should clarify that you should only clean up the aircraft after you've reached a positive rate of climb - not just the target airspeed.

I usually practice them about 3-4 times per year.
That is to say, I go flying with the express intent of stalling in every configuration and flying around at the stall speed.
Usually I spend about 20 minutes on stalls and 40 minutes flight time total.
I am about due for another go now, seeing as I just fitted elevator gap seals and want to test them in the stall. Just waiting on the springtime weather.

We need to understand Gunny's BL line and Wolfgang's no lift line where the air can no longer take the curve and the wing no longer pushes the air down to keep the airplane up. Understanding and muscle memory come from practice.

We cannot practice stalls during maneuvering flight, including takeoff and approach. Here understanding and muscle memory of recovery are not as useful. Here energy management, using all energy available, is critical to prevent going there and stalling.

Also, the out of ground effect slow flight and stall has a slightly different feel than the in ground effect slow flight and stall. In addition to OGE slow flight and stall practice, we need IGE slow flight and stall practice.

MTV-

I totally understand the issue you raise about inbreeding and Flight School standards. Honestly, I don't have a solution. I have always thought the PTS was substandard and led to total misunderstanding of stalls and recoveries. Whenever I can I correct those misunderstandings. that's about the only solution I personally can offer.

But I would like to point out that I don't think I am teaching contrary to the PTS/ACS.... I am going steps further to hopefully elicit a deeper understanding, rather than rote execution. I actually cover PTS standards during training, but endeavor to go beyond that.

Contact flying- I applaud your comments on Energy Management... in my opinion you are exactly right.

gunny

Gunny wrote:MTV-

I totally understand the issue you raise about inbreeding and Flight School standards. Honestly, I don't have a solution. I have always thought the PTS was substandard and led to total misunderstanding of stalls and recoveries. Whenever I can I correct those misunderstandings. that's about the only solution I personally can offer.

But I would like to point out that I don't think I am teaching contrary to the PTS/ACS.... I am going steps further to hopefully elicit a deeper understanding, rather than rote execution. I actually cover PTS standards during training, but endeavor to go beyond that.

Contact flying- I applaud your comments on Energy Management... in my opinion you are exactly right.

gunny

As I said, I agree with you. The point, however, is that the ACS standards are wrong, and they need to be changed. To just accept faulty and potentially dangerous basic training standards, assuming that at some later date, some crusty old fart like me will TRY to correct that behavior is the wrong way to go.

Every CFI in the country should be submitting comments on this to the FAA.

My last FR I did with a nice young CFI at a school. He asked me to stall the plane (a Diamond Eclipse-cool little plane). So I did a series of stalls, including a falling leaf stall, then did a true slow flight demo. He was amazed...then said "can I try that?" When we were done, he commented that most of the CFIs at the school would soil their undies if I had done this with them. He'll be a great instructor and pilot...not so sure about the rest.

Send in comments...that's my point. It won't get fixed if we don't.

MTV

Here's the response I got back from my comments (sounds a bit canned):

Good morning –

Thanks for your note to the ACS Focus Team. The FAA has just published a Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) that explains the rationale for changing the evaluation (testing) standard, and provides information on how training might be conducted. I've included the link below:

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviatio ... O16010.pdf

You may have encountered the term "law of primacy" in your flight training, which speaks to the power and lasting impact of the concepts and habits you first learn. The FAA does not want to encourage pilots - especially new pilots - to intentionally disregard the stall warning horn. Rather, the change is ensure that pilots are trained to take prompt action to reduce the angle of attack if the stall warning activates. The training for what occurs when the stall warning does activate is part of the stall/stall recovery task.

The FAA and the members of the ACS Working Group will have additional discussion on this topic at the quarterly ACS WG meeting later this month.

Best,
Susan & the ACS Focus Team


So here's what I sent in response to her response:

Hello Susan and the rest of the team--

With all due respects, I believe that you are making a grave mistake. It was a mistake years ago, when the PTS required the pilot to initiate stall recovery as soon as there was an indication of a stall. Then the PTS was correctly revised to require a recovery from a full stall. Now your SAFO is not only compromising teaching aerodynamics in slow flight, but pretty clearly, it indicates that you are planning to return to requiring applicants to recover from stalls as soon as there is any indication of stall, including as soon as the stall warner activates.

You see, without actually doing minimum controllable airspeed, and without actually doing deep stalls, but only reading about them and nibbling at them in flight, the student will never learn what actually happens, nor will the student learn how to handle it when it does happen--and it will. By insisting that the airspeed be higher than when the stall warner activates, there simply will not be any feeling of the impending stall. No burbling of the wing as the boundary layer moves forward on the wing will be felt. The ailerons in the typical trainer will remain fully effective. The student will not learn the effectiveness of the rudder in a deep stall. That will not teach the realities of aerodynamics.

In today's world, we too often attempt to protect people from everything. That may work in some disciplines, but in flight training, it will create pilots who are unable to handle unexpected situations, such as turbulence induced stalls after they've slowed to maneuvering speed, accelerated stalls which occur as they attempt to dodge other traffic or even birds--all sorts of scenarios come to mind. And it will create an unnecessary and potentially disastrous fear of real slow flight and real stalls.

I hope that others with flight instruction experience are commenting, and I hope that you will consider the comments from the field more than the theoretical comments of those who have never instructed. In the interests of safety, and of fostering the FAA's intent to address loss of control issues, I urge you to reconsider the direction you appear to be taking.


My concern was further raised when I read the SAFO that she refers to--good idea for other instructors to read it, too. We've got a real dilution of standards happening here, unless enough real world, experienced instructors persuade them otherwise.

Cary

After reading that document, I understand what they are getting at. The FAA is hoping for "Pavlov's bell". They don't want the pilot to be desensitized to the horn, and immediately "salivate", aahhh, I mean correct for the impending stall.

However, like many of you, I feel that the accident scenarios they (FAA) are hoping to prevent, will not actually decrease, and will very well likely increase due to the lack of "feel" of the aircraft in the impending stall. There are countless accidents occurring and being outlined as lack of "stick and rudder", or "contact flying" by professional pilots caused by the disuse of these skills, due likely to automation.

There are countless gear up landings still occurring, evidenced by video showing horns-a-blaring, and still the pilot doesn't hear it. The pilot is is in a high level of workload, and stress, and cant "hear" the horn. But I understand the FAA, the engine failure on takeoff, and the elevator trim set too nose high during a go-around initiated by ATC, or those "moose-stalls" are never a cause for high workload or stress....... I could be wrong here, but I don't know. The professionals working at the FAA might know better then me......

Sorry, I'll put my opinions back into the metal box and lose the key.........

I practice stalls very often. I also practice stomping on one of the rudder pedals as the stall developes which results in a very fun time!

The first half dozen or so planes I flew had no Pavlovian Fright / Panic Stall Bell.
You learned to LISTEN to the plane and wind noise to tell of the approach and then detect the first burble or (boundary layer separation.) You could either do a recovery or continue to balance the plane on that burble zone. Your choice unless taking a lesson - BFR - new rental check ride etc. FAA want ya to freak out and recover - the plane does not much care - It just says, "OK Boss - whatever."

The only stall horns I flew were in rentals. They were always more of a distraction than a benefit to me. On my last plane I took the horn and mounted in small box that was open on one end - mounted the whole thing as far back behind the glove box as possible and put a switch on it.

If I am in a busy, non towered, airport with busy traffic, and I am trying to be nice, polite, and considerate to a mix of models and speeds slow craft, the last thing I need is what sounds like a screaming stuck mike somewhere within ten miles.

The closest thing to a problem came after the VGs were put on. The "time" / "speed" difference between first burble and stall came on a lot sooner. (A narrower hysteresis.) Took more lighter fingered finesse with the VGs at critical slow speeds.

Seen too many stall horns way out of adjustment on rentals.

Nufffornow
Rant Off
Chris C

I'm nearing the end of my PPL training so I asked for some unusual drills today.

I said that I understand how to exit a spin but I don't understand how I would end up in a spin so we practised low power (1700 rpm or so) stalls with 20 degree flaps in a 45 degree turn.

It was an excellent lesson. All my previous stall training had been in level flight. Adding 45 degrees of bank really made me think.

The rest of the lesson was mountain flying, crossing ridges, steep turns in box canyons and escape path choices. It was the first time I ever really felt like I was learning fundamental back country skills.

Awesome day.

albravo wrote:I'm nearing the end of my PPL training so I asked for some unusual drills today.

I said that I understand how to exit a spin but I don't understand how I would end up in a spin so we practised low power (1700 rpm or so) stalls with 20 degree flaps in a 45 degree turn.

It was an excellent lesson. All my previous stall training had been in level flight. Adding 45 degrees of bank really made me think.

The rest of the lesson was mountain flying, crossing ridges, steep turns in box canyons and escape path choices. It was the first time I ever really felt like I was learning fundamental back country skills.

Awesome day.

I'm not surprised that you're just now learning fundamental back country skills--that's not all that common in private training. But I am surprised that you're just now learning stalls in a turn and with some deployment of flaps. I'm glad you finally are, because that's where most inadvertent stalls occur, with low power, lower airspeed, some flaps, and turning (though maybe not quite with 45 degree banks), i.e., typical base to final turn. The potential for an inadvertent spin is greater there, because way too often, especially low time students and pilots, the turn to final isn't coordinated.

Stall uncoordinated (even straight ahead, but especially in an uncoordinated turn), and that's the makings of a spin. Remember that a spin won't occur unless the wings are stalled. Don't stall, no spin.

Incidentally, don't count on knowing how to "exit a spin" until you've actually done it. Most pilots, when experiencing their first spin, find that they're really disoriented, and many pilots may "know" what to do, but then immediately forget what to do in the heat of that disorientation. So don't hesitate to get some spin training in a suitable airplane with a suitably talented instructor who is comfortable spinning and teaching spins (not all are--many of today's instructors are really afraid of spins and have only done it just enough to get the endorsement in their logbooks).

Cary

Cary wrote:Incidentally, don't count on knowing how to "exit a spin" until you've actually done it. Most pilots, when experiencing their first spin, find that they're really disoriented, and many pilots may "know" what to do, but then immediately forget what to do in the heat of that disorientation. So don't hesitate to get some spin training in a suitable airplane with a suitably talented instructor who is comfortable spinning and teaching spins (not all are--many of today's instructors are really afraid of spins and have only done it just enough to get the endorsement in their logbooks).

Cary

Cary,

We (Canadians) get to practise spins early in training. I've probably done a dozen spin recoveries and more spiral dive recoveries.

In my opinion, they introduce spin and spiral dive recovery way too early in training, when a student is still figuring out basic flying, but I didn't write the curriculum. I questioned it and they said it was essential knowledge prior to first solo.

I'm getting to the point where I understand a little bit of what I don't know, so I'm asking lots of questions and getting some atypical drills and experiences like yesterday.

Today was dual x-country through my first towered airspace. Compared to the sticks where I've been training there was lots of chatter, traffic and distraction. So much fun. Tomorrow is solo over the same course then my long solo, then practise for the check ride. I get so darn giddy after every lesson, I'm like a 5 year old at Christmas.