When to recover from a stall?

[The Gardener]

as long as you are properly corrdinated the plane should stall without any yawing... plan ahead with your rudder!

I personally would choose turning stalls any day over stalls strait ahead on a checkride. Why? Because you don't have to maintain +/-10 degrees of heading and that is just one less thing to worry about!

 

[tgrayson]

It seems like torque is the trouble maker here. The RG has 40 extra ponies over the stock L model, so that may be why it was more exciting in the RG.

If by torque you mean the left yawing tendencies, I'm skeptical they're at issue here; you have the yaw under control with the rudder, so there is isn't any net torque. I also did my CFI in an RG and recall their stalls as being no different from the N models.

There's always the possibly of rigging issues to cause one wing to stall before another, but ignoring that, theory says that the outside wing should stall first in a climbing turn, and the inside wing should stall first during a descending turn, even with the ball centered. The reason is that in any turn other than level, the aircraft is in a constant roll; the roll induces differences in AOA on one wing vs. the other.

If you will use a model airplane, you can see that a climbing airplane in a left turn is actually rolling to the right. That will, in theory, cause that wing to stall opposite to the turn. (Well documented in a number of aerodynamics books.)

 

[Maurus]

Torque is only a left yawing tendency on the ground. Once you are in the air, it is turned into a left rolling tendency.

 

[tgrayson]

Torque is only a left yawing tendency on the ground. Once you are in the air, it is turned into a left rolling tendency.

Torque is a generic term often applied to the left yawing as well as the left rolling tendencies. Not completely inaccurate, since they're all rotational forces, just the axes are different. However, to be consistent with current FAA terminology, torque most specifically refers to engine torque, or rather the equal and opposite reaction to it.

However, the poster seemed to be using torque in the generic sense, rather than specific. Not that relevant anyway, since both yawing and rotational forces are in equilibrium.

 

[Chewie von Nubbins]

Torque is a generic term often applied to the left yawing as well as the left rolling tendencies. Not completely inaccurate, since they're all rotational forces, just the axes are different. However, to be consistent with current FAA terminology, torque most specifically refers to engine torque, or rather the equal and opposite reaction to it.

However, the poster seemed to be using torque in the generic sense, rather than specific. Not that relevant anyway, since both yawing and rotational forces are in equilibrium.

Man.....I really miss the tiffs between you and midlifeflyer. Any chance of bringing those back soon? I learned a lot of stuff from those girth measuring contests.

 

[tgrayson]

Man.....I really miss the tiffs between you and midlifeflyer. Any chance of bringing those back soon?

No, I think we got him straightened out.

 

[holyshirt]

This was actually brought up on my CFI oral. The examiner made it clear to me that commercial pilots are to bring it to the indications of an imminent stall (buffet) then recover, while private pilots are to stall it and recover. The PTS should specify alittle bit better since the difference from commercial pts stalls and private is only defined by one word. "as" and "after"

 

[nosehair]

the difference from commercial pts stalls and private is only defined by one word. "as" and "after"

That depends on what your definition of the word "as" is, to parallel quote a similar argument of indefinable as-ness, or is-ness.

 

[ppragman]

Opposite the direction of rotation yes... not as in cross controlled. Ailerons should be neutral.


Don't teach to pass a check ride, teach so there is full understanding of the maneuver. Your student should be able to handle anything the DE tosses their way, full stall, to the buffet, incipient spin, and should be able to tell the DPE how to recover from an elevator stall (that one is damn hard to demonstrate ) Guess I am saying, teach all the maneuvers so the student is proficient, and then don't worry about it. The DE should brief that before the check ride.

No, teach to the PTS, which means teaching for the checkride. If the pts says after the stall for privates, as the stall is happening for commercials, and first indication of stalls for multis and ATPs teach it that way. Don't reinvent the wheel, the DE can't fail you for something not in PTS, nor will heshe expect you do something thats not in the PTS without first briefing you on the procedure involved, teaching an understanding of the maneuver won't do a damn bit of good if they still fail their checkride, and it also fosters the idea that the feds don't know what they're talking about, everything should be by the book, lest we start getting into the anti-authority mindset. Whether its PTS, FARs, AIM, POH, AFM/AFH or OpSpecs and GOM, the book must be followed for the sole reason that it is our lifeline to demonstrable data. The student "should" know this, or "should" know that are very subjective terms in that there are many ways in aviation to skin a cat, however, whenever there are guidelines set forth, we should always do our level best to follow them to the letter.

I'll get off my soap box, sorry, sore subject at the wrong time.

 

[tgrayson]

Don't reinvent the wheel, the DE can't fail you for something not in PTS, nor will heshe expect you do something thats not in the PTS without first briefing you on the procedure involved

I agree that if the examiner is telling the candidate how it "ought" to be done, something is wrong. The examiner is there to *evaluate*, not teach. His/her job is to say "pass/fail". If the examiner has a problem with the way a maneuver is performed, he/she should speak with the instructor, and both should use the PTS/Airplane Flying Handbook/Instrument Flying handbook to determine the proper way for the maneuver to be performed.

That said, I don't think that many examiners would fail a candidate based on the definitions of "as" vs. "after".