Has Stall Training been eliminated

[Big Pistons Forever]

Pilots should not be afraid of a spin and should have plenty enough training to be comfortable recognizing one long before it happens, and recovering quickly if it does. I don't feel the standard syllabus here in Canada did a good enough job for me. One lesson with 2-3 spins does not build enough muscle memory IMO.

All of PPL and CPL training should be oriented around stall recognition and recovery. There is no reason why an ordinary Cessna or Piper should ever be in a spin. If it is than either you grossly mishandled the airplane, deliberately kept in pro spin controls or were so asleep at the switch you were stupid times 3

1) You let the airplane enter slow flight and did nothing, then

2) You let the airplane stall, and did nothing, then

3) After it stalled you let uncontrolled yaw develop and did nothing

Even if you do let let the airplane stall if you control the yaw with rudder it can not spin.

The accident statistics are clear. The majority of stall spin accidents occur close to the ground and there was not enough altitude to complete a spin recovery. There was however invariably an opportunity to avoid losing control in the first place

Spin training belongs in an introductory aerobatics course, which I highly recommend everyone does.

[goingmissed]

There are so many people here who think, "I've been trained to recover from a stall and I am comfortable recovering from a stall, therefore everyone else should be comfortable with it."

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade. Some people are weekend warriors who go out for a leisure flight without the intention of pushing the aircraft to it's limits.

Who are any of us to judge another pilot for choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?

[Big Pistons Forever]

There are so many people here who think, "I've been trained to recover from a stall and I am comfortable recovering from a stall, therefore everyone else should be comfortable with it."

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade. Some people are weekend warriors who go out for a leisure flight without the intention of pushing the aircraft to it's limits.

Who are any of us to judge another pilot for choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?

I would suggest that if a pilot is not completely comfortable with slow flight and stall recovery, then they should be working on that, not how to pull the red handle. I fully support that pilots should practice at the limits, but the limits that matter are those just before and after the airplane leaves controlled flight. So the exercises of most value IMO are flight in the extreme slow flight regime at moderately high power. The airplane should be just nibbling at the stall so that you have to actively manage AOA and yaw to maintain control.

If you can comfortably do that with automatic control inputs you will never get into an inadvertent spin because you will have instinctively put in the control inputs necessary to prevent the developing loss of controlled flight and subsequent spin entry.

[PilotDAR]

choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?

My perspective is different. In my opinion, the only benefit provided by a BRS to a certified plane is that if the airplane ends up in an unflyable condition, yet still within the 'chute deployment envelope, the RBS becomes the last layer of protection. Hitting the ground excepted, no unaccelerated stall in a certified plane will render it unflyable. If the pilot thinks of the BRS as a layer of protection, they must be prepared, trained, and current enough to maintain the flight as much as possible within the deployment envelope, and have a plan for when they cannot remain in the envelope (close to the ground, takeoff and landing come to mind). Like be ready to "avoid" a stall.

I opine that if a weekend warrior is so proficient with flying to the optimum of the BRS' protection, maintaining decent stall avoidance and basic recovery skills is probably less effort! Low altitude events aside, an unaccelerated stall in near wings level co-odinated flight in a certified plane is pretty well a non event. If they worry pilots, those pilot should seek out some currency training - it's time.....

I respect a pilot who knows, and flies within his/her limits, that's commendable. And if that pilot has stall avoidance so perfected that they will never stall, okay, that is safe. So another layer of protection on top of safe, is still... safe.

[photofly]

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.

Are you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?

[WANP]

Stall recovery is easy, and should be practiced often, same with slow flight, and other maneuvers. In 26 years as a pilot, never once did I wish my plane had a chute.

So that begs the question, do people see these chutes as a reason to practice less, take more risks, and just plan to use it to save their butt?

[goingmissed]

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.

Are you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?

I know of a group of four children (under 20 y/o) that were killed in a 172 that got into a flat spin.

I am in no way stating that it is a substitute to the proper stall recovery, but it is not for any of us to judge someone for wanting to add an additional layer of safety.

I for one keep tools in my car to be able to change my wheels, oil, or many other small tasks. Am I obtuse because I am preparing for the possibility that something will go wrong instead of focusing only on preventative measures and not having a plan-B?

[photofly]

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade.

Are you seriously advocating that a device that destroys the airframe is an acceptable alternative to a normal stall recovery?

I know of a group of four children (under 20 y/o) that were killed in a 172 that got into a flat spin.

We all know where the fault for that lies, and it's not with the absence of a parachute. Why would a pilot not have practiced a stall recovery in a decade? I'm not arguing that nobody should want a parachute, but there are lower limits to proficiency below which I think someone should recognize they should just not fly.

[PilotDAR]

in a 172 that got into a flat spin

The only way to get an airworthy 172 into a flat spin is to load it behind the aft aft C of G limit. 172's have two aft C of G limits, depending upon how the pilot has chosen to operate it. But even loaded in front of the more aft of those two limits, it will not flat spin - I've done the testing. From spin testing other Cessnas (260/208) I can say that at the aft C of G limit, it may require "brisk" control wheel input (as described in the POH) and sustained full nose down to break the stall/spin. But correctly loaded Cessna singles do not enter unrecoverable spins.

I am aware of a few accidents over the years, where four new pilots/students were flying together in a 172, and spun it in. I would wonder if there was some "hey, watch this..." factor in those accidents. I've never heard "hey watch this..." just before flying to achieve effective stall avoidance.

[fish4life]

There are so many people here who think, "I've been trained to recover from a stall and I am comfortable recovering from a stall, therefore everyone else should be comfortable with it."

Guess what, some people aren't comfortable with it. They don't want to rely on a stall recovery technique that they may not have practiced in a decade. Some people are weekend warriors who go out for a leisure flight without the intention of pushing the aircraft to it's limits.

Who are any of us to judge another pilot for choosing to add an additional layer of protection to their aircraft?

They shouldn’t be flying the plane if they aren’t comfortable with stall recovery, if they don’t fly enough to stay comfortable then they should go up with an instructor until they are. The day after you are done your flight test should be a day you are becoming more proficient at flying it shouldn’t be a high point of your proficiency.