Stall warning, vintage aircraft

[ahw01]

Sounds like the beaver in Sydney had no stall warning installed, probably due to its age predating their introduction.

Much has been made of AoA indicators recently but most people trained on a typical stall warning aircraft eg c-172 will recognise it vs just buffet etc.

I don't remember a stall warning being a required system in pt 91, though modern single engine a/c will likely be certified with them.

Given an accelerated stall may not trigger the warning, sounds like a slow flight and stalls are as relevant as ever in refresher training.

Alex.

 

[Hammertime]

Sounds like the beaver in Sydney had no stall warning installed, probably due to its age predating their introduction.

Much has been made of AoA indicators recently but most people trained on a typical stall warning aircraft eg c-172 will recognise it vs just buffet etc.

I don't remember a stall warning being a required system in pt 91, though modern single engine a/c will likely be certified with them.

Given an accelerated stall may not trigger the warning, sounds like a slow flight and stalls are as relevant as ever in refresher training.

Alex.

IDK the accident you are talking about. But, if a stall warning system is installed, any stall, including an accelerated stall will trigger the warning. A wing will stall when the critical angle of attack is exceeded, regardless of airspeed or attitude. A stall warning system should trigger when the AoA approaches the critical AoA.

 

[hammerhat]

I don't remember a stall warning being a required system in pt 91

It's in Part 23

 

[inigo88]

It's in Part 23.207:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/23.207

However, it states:

(b) The stall warning may be furnished either through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.

If you're worried about accelerated stalls you can consult the bank angle vs. stall speed table, or construct one yourself using straight ahead Vs and math (or my personal favorite, go to the practice area and make one yourself. Sometimes it IS fun to be "the test pilot" ).

Since the Beaver is Canadian it probably wasn't designed to 23.207, but I suspect they have an analogous reg up there (because designing a STOL aircraft with forgiving stall handling qualities is sort of common sense).

 

[Roger Roger]

It's in Part 23.207:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/23.207

However, it states:



If you're worried about accelerated stalls you can consult the bank angle vs. stall speed table, or construct one yourself using straight ahead Vs and math (or my personal favorite, go to the practice area and make one yourself. Sometimes it IS fun to be "the test pilot" ).

Since the Beaver is Canadian it probably wasn't designed to 23.207, but I suspect they have an analogous reg up there (because designing a STOL aircraft with forgiving stall handling qualities is sort of common sense).

The stall warning debate is an ancient one in beaver circles. Evidently many of the attempts to fit one ended in the breaker being habitually pulled because pilots didn’t like having it sound during a takeoff or landing. People used to do that on the caravan as well and it drove me batty.

 

[ahw01]

It's in Part 23

Agreed but while not a required 'instrument' is it part of the MEL? Can you depart with it inop.

 

[ahw01]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-42101621

 

[Roger Roger]

Agreed but while not a required 'instrument' is it part of the MEL? Can you depart with it inop.

I’m not sure you quite understand the relationship of Part 23 and required equipment/instruments.

 

[Roger Roger]

It's in Part 23.207:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/23.207

However, it states:



If you're worried about accelerated stalls you can consult the bank angle vs. stall speed table, or construct one yourself using straight ahead Vs and math (or my personal favorite, go to the practice area and make one yourself. Sometimes it IS fun to be "the test pilot" ).

Since the Beaver is Canadian it probably wasn't designed to 23.207, but I suspect they have an analogous reg up there (because designing a STOL aircraft with forgiving stall handling qualities is sort of common sense).

Also I’m told (though I don’t have any stick time) that the Beaver stall is actually kind of abrupt due to not having any wing washout.

 

[ahw01]

I’m not sure you quite understand the relationship of Part 23 and required equipment/instruments.

Agreed. Ask a student if they need an ASI and the answer is yes, but knowledge about other systems is less strong.

 

[USMCmech]

Agreed. Ask a student if they need an ASI and the answer is yes, but knowledge about other systems is less strong.

Ask a student (or even most CFIs) if 91.205 requires wheels, or a propeller, or even a vertical stab.

It's fun to watch their heads explode.

 

[ahw01]

Ask a student (or even most CFIs) if 91.205 requires wheels, or a propeller, or even a vertical stab.

It's fun to watch their heads explode.

This is just it, we can react to the stall warning but as to why or how it's there...