stall recovery

[loopa]

Pop quiz: what's an aircraft's stalling speed at zero G?

Another pop quiz: What is your stall speed at the maximum g-load your aircraft was certified for (ex: 3.8g for normal category)?

Sadly, there are way too many instructors that can't answer correctly to that basic question

There's a few ways to figure this out

The first and foremost, stall times square root of 1/cosAB

1/cosAB = Load Factor. Stall times square root of 3.8 = your answer. The reason behind why it's cosine is pretty neat too ! I'm going to have to think of a way to explain it on here. Maybe somebody with more experience could do it in the simplest way possible.

There's another method too !

Stall x square root of the limiting load factor times square root of weight ratio to MCTOW or GW = VA

Then you take the magic constant and divide it by VA and get approximate stall speed.

[MichaelP]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)
step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)
step 3: lower the nose to unstall
step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

I don't agree with the above.

Step one should be lower the nose!
(In many aeroplanes rapid opening of the throttle will cause the engine to cough and you might not have the additional power, and besides the elevator effectiveness in slipstream is increased. Full power with stick back and full rudder is the way to do a snap roll!).

If you apply full opposite rudder in many aeroplanes I've flown you'll be in a spin right now!

Lower the nose while applying full power, and apply enough rudder to stop any further wing drop.

In the Cessna, power on stall with flaps, expect a wing drop.
If you do nothing else but move the control column forward the wing drop will stop.
Try it at a safe altitude, 20 degrees flap, 1500 RPM in a 150/152/172, with your feet off the rudder pedals. The wing will drop, and this will stop as soon as you lower the nose still with your feet off the rudder pedals.

It is very very very important that like in all things with respect to aircraft control you use as much control input as is necessary and only that much.

Many instructors overdo the rudder input in a wing drop stall thereby recovering from the stall in a slip, and in this way they lose more altitude than is necessary.

We teach stall recognition and recovery not for 3,000 feet, we teach it for 100 to 500 feet turning onto or on final approach.
Concentration too much on the rudder use will do two things:
1. Lose more height with the instinct to pull the nose up.
2. Cause an immediate spin in the opposite direction when that instinct causes a secondary stall with rudder applied pro spin!

We need to learn to use the rudder in a wing drop - incipient spin recovery, but we must learn to unstall the aircraft first and then apply enough and only enough rudder to stop the wing drop.
In the Cessna provided the aircraft is unstalled first, little or no rudder is necessary to stop the wing drop.
Once the aircraft is unstalled then aileron and coordinated rudder should be used to roll the wings level and not the rudder alone as I have seen demonstrated too many times.

The important thing to consider is how far the nose has dropped.
Once it is well below the horizon then spin recovery should be considered... Know your aircraft!
If the stall recovery is with power then unstall it first.
But for deep incipient spin/spin recovery the power is off first, then it's: centralise the ailerons, apply full opposite rudder, and stick forward sufficient to unstall the aircraft, centralise, ease out of dive
Use sufficient and only sufficient elevator... In most light aircraft full stick forward will cause negative G and a much greater loss of height! Use only as much control input as is required.

Be careful, spins with flaps selected are not permitted in any aeroplanes I've flown.
Some people will argue that we must not do incipient spins with flaps selected.
I know of a Piper Warrior that is not allowed to do power on stalls with flaps selected unless the yaw is controlled such that no wing drop occurs! If this aircraft drops a wing then this is incipient spin and is in contravention of the POH.
The argument began when an instructor put a D in the Spin column of a student's PTR!

[paydaymayday]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

No no no no no no no no.

No.

Lower that nose first. It is the most immediate way of decreasing that angle of attack.

Sure, you can add power first in a little Cessna pistonbanger, but this can get you a good down payment on the farm if you try it in less forgiving aircraft. In those aircraft, you have to think about the torque, asymetric thrust, and slipstream effects at low airspeed - this is where they have their most significant effect.

You do this, and you can find yourself in a spin - a spin with power on, which can flatten it out *very* quickly. And in a flat spin, even when you pull the power back off, you could be stuck in it. Just because a training aircraft will forgive mistakes does not mean you should make them.

[Lurch]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

So very wrong

Please do not teach this to anymore students

Lurch

[paydaymayday]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

So very wrong

Please do not teach this to anymore students

Lurch

He's an instructor?

[Lurch]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

So very wrong

Please do not teach this to anymore students

Lurch

He's an instructor?

Yes, Unfortunately.

Take a look at some of his other posts, it will scare you.

Lurch

[MichaelP]

Very sorry 767 it seems foot in mouth again...

I'm glad there's a consensus on here, that sequence might have gone unanswered with some unfortunate people taking it as the WORD!

767 is not alone.

I failed a student on his stage check in China because he did precisely that sequence.
The engine in the DA40-180 responded and drove the aeroplane, screaming, out of the stall. It recovered with no real loss of altitude with the stick hard back!
You might get away with it in some aeroplanes but we teach for all aeroplanes.

There were huge problems in China and it has led me to question anything a US FAA school teaches.
This was American Part 141 with the students learning SOPs that contained the attitudes shown on the G1000's PFD!

From the SOPs:

Steep Turns

HASELL, not below 500m, speed below Va (95 – 100 KIAS), 19” 2,300 RPM, add 2” when entering, entry ATT +5 deg, 3 deg during turn, out 1 deg. Anticipate rollout when magenta touches HDG bug.

I added the "deg" words as the symbol for degrees was changed copying it over.

Here's the circuit SOP:

Normal Takeoff

Line up, apply full power – 3 seconds, T’s + P’s, airspeed alive, 2,600 RPM minimum, rotate @ 59 KIAS, ATT +8 deg, pitch rate 3deg/second. Target 75 – 80 KIAS.

At 200m (120m AGL)

Flaps Up, 25”/2,500 RPM, 80 KIAS, ATT 8 deg, fuel pump off, T’s + P’s, fuel flow green.
(25”/2,500 RPM is the power setting for a Piper Arrow and is not in the DA40 AFM!)

Crosswind

Level off, set PWR 21”/2,300RPM, turn downwind relative angle 30 - 45 deg.
Downwind

Height HDG Spacing, BUMFISH
Abeam TDZ PWR 18”, reduce SPD and trim
Level turn onto base

Base

Lookout, PWR 15”, adjust for wind. Turn and make radio call, Flaps T/O, trim, 80 KIAS, ATT - 3 deg.
Don’t initiate DES before TGT SPD +5 Kt.
Judge need for Flaps LDG, ATT - 5 deg.

Final

Anticipate turn, not lower than 150m, 75 KIAS, 70 KIAS short final.
Mixture, Prop, Fuel Pump.

I disagreed totally with the concept of teaching students to fly with the G1000 at the expense of looking outside.
I dimmed the PFD and switched the MFD to traffic... All my students who began this way had no trouble looking out even when the distracting G1000 was turned on.

Don't get me wrong, the G1000 is fantastic and we have it in our DA40 and D-Sim DA42, but there's a time for this after the basics have been well and truly understood.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Part of the problem with flight training is a tendancy to treat manoevers in a cook book fashion.

Therefore a spin entry is 2 parts back stick with one part rudder stir quickly and voila

This is great for passing the flight test but unfortunately gets in the way of a true understanding of the forces involved and the scenarios that will lead you into trouble. I see teaching the stall/spin exercise is very much like forced approaches. The teaching of teh forced approach exercise should always start with discussion and practice on not letting the engine fail in the first place. Only than should the actual procedure to fly the airplane to safe landing be pursued. Similarly the most important part of stall/spin training should be on how not to stall/spin in the first place. If you are dumb enough to let the airplane stall than you should be programmed to instinctively lower the AOA to unstall the aircraft while simulataneously cancelling any devloping yaw with the rudder so it doesn't spin.


As for 767's contributions to this forum, well I think it would be a very good idea if he put a bit more thought into his posts before hitting the send key......

[CarbHeat]

instinctively lower the AOA to unstall the aircraft while simulataneously cancelling any devloping yaw with the rudder so it doesn't spin.

+1

[AEROBAT]

Step 1: Full opposite rudder (effectivness reduces as airspeed reduces, minimize the wing drop)

step 2: Full power ( makes rudder more effective and helps reduce the rate of descent)

step 3: lower the nose to unstall

step 1 and 2 can be reveresed if you wish. Lowering the nose should be done after power is added.

Picture youself flying a glider, if you stall the plane what is the first thing you do? You lower the nose of course. The rudder is used to keep the wings level/ball centered.

If you give full opposite rudder and full throttle before unstalling the wing you will do a snap roll if you have enough HP. You always unstall the wing first regardless of your angle of bank.

[AEROBAT]

Pop quiz: what's an aircraft's stalling speed at zero G?

Another pop quiz: What is your stall speed at the maximum g-load your aircraft was certified for (ex: 3.8g for normal category)?

Sadly, there are way too many instructors that can't answer correctly to that basic question

You are refering to the manouvering speed. That is derived from the design load factor. You take the square root of the load factor times the normal stall speed. Example... 6 G safe load factor for a plane with 70 mph stall speed.

Square root of 6=2.449 2.449x70 mph stall speed gives a manouvering speed of around 170 mph

[Dagwood]

Wow, lots of good info here. Thanks to all the experienced pilots for posting.

I like to think that even though I have a licence to teach, I can still learn something everyday!

[CSk3RampBOY]

Step one should be lower the nose!

Bingo, Bingo, Bingo!
Lower the nose and unstall the aircraft. Only applying right rudder won't be very effective as the aircraft will still be in a stall, thus reducing the effect of the rudder. Take a glance at the airspeed next time and you'll see. One of the reasons why a student can have difficulty maintaining their heading during a power on stall.

More airspeed = more control response and yawing moment.

[767]

More airspeed = more control response and yawing moment.

Ill agree/disagree with michealp on some of the points...

I guess I shouldve said "opposite rudder" instead of "FULL" opposite rudder. I think the reason why most students roll the opposite way (and snap roll, spin, etc.) when recovering is because "they dont look outside" during the recovery. I like to cover up all my instruments except the altimeter when i teach stall(s). When the student levels the wings, the rudder is NEUTRILIZED right away, while simultaneously ADDING POWER and LOWERING THE NOSE!!

I think that it is a dangerous habit for a student to lower the nose first. An experienced pilot is an exception. When I teach the student to land, the purpose is to intentionally stall the airplane when flaring. Should the student stall on low approach for whatever reason, i would prefer they add power first before lowering the nose, and yes they should overshoot. Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low.

CSk3RampBOY, what you say is true. Although airplanes can stall at any speed/attitude, most of the time the stall is accidentaly entered due to slow airspeed. And of course, the takeoff and landing phase of flight are the most close to this stall speed. It is becuase of low altitude, I teach power first and then lower the nose, and minimize the wing drop with the rudder (as requried). But like they say, always follow the POH method. So if the aircraft you fly has a different procedure, follow that instead of mine. I hope that helps....


Thanks michealp for your points, like i said, i agree with most of what you said. If you like, i can pm you. cheers

[modi13]

I disagreed totally with the concept of teaching students to fly with the G1000 at the expense of looking outside.

Absolutely. I think the biggest problem with modern flight training is the complete absence of emphasis on one's outside references. I flew with another instructor's student who had only been taught how to navigate using headings given by the instructor. I'm not sure what he expected the student to do when flying solo, but apparently saying "Point the nose towards that mountain and fly until you hit the river" was too difficult. Almost every problem one of my students has encountered has been resolved by covering the instruments, which I do almost immediately. I imagine students and instructors flying out of uncontrolled airports have a huge advantage in this regard, in that they don't even require an altimeter to prevent busting of airspace. I would vastly prefer to teach in an aircraft equipped with no instruments at all.

In the Cessna, power on stall with flaps, expect a wing drop.

Yes, but not if you adequately control yaw. With a proper entry, there should be sufficient rudder applied to counteract the slipstream, which will prevent yaw, and therefore roll, both before and after the stall occurs. An assymetric stall will only occur with a differential of lift. If done properly, a stall with 2300 RPM can be done easily without a single degree of heading change, and no more than 20 feet of altitude lost, but you have to be able to see even the slightest amount of yaw. I've also had to apply full rudder in the recovery just to keep it from rolling any further, but I don't apply it abruptly; however, it's incorrect to say that full opposite rudder will cause a spin in the opposite direction. (I also realize that you might not be talking about the aircraft I fly)

I think that it is a dangerous habit for a student to lower the nose first.

Then you don't understand the aerodynamics of a stall. Lowering the nose has nothing to do with accelerating; airspeed only has an indirect correlation to angle of attack. When you stall on approach you're already in a descent, and therefore your relative airflow is from below you. Unless you lower the nose, you can never reduce the angle of attack below the stall. Once you're in slow flight, increaing the angle of attack causes an increase in the rate of descent, which will change the relative airflow and increase the angle of attack further, making the stall worse. Failing to teach your students to lower the nose is simply dangerous; yes, you'll lose some altitude, but that's inevitable after a stall has occured. By lowering the nose to break the stall, you're minimizing the amount of altitude lost. Indeed, raising the nose on approach to try to extend the glide is one of the largest causes of accidents among private pilots, and the solution is always, ALWAYS to push the nose down.

i would prefer they add power first before lowering the nose, and yes they should overshoot. Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low.

Consider how difficult it is to climb in slow flight, even with full power. Now consider trying to do that from beyond the stall. There simply isn't enough power available to claw your way out of that situation. Again, delaying lowering the nose will only make it worse. For that matter, aircraft which have the thrust line below the centre of gravity have a tendency to pitch back when power is applied, as is the case with Cessnas; by adding power, you're actually increasing the angle of attack, deepening the stall, and increasing the amount of power required to get below the critical A of A. It might seem counter-intuitive and unnerving to lower the nose at 200 feet, but that's the only way to unstall the aircraft, and the loss of altitude is far better than the inevitable alternative.

[paydaymayday]

767, you are going to kill someone one day. Directly or indirectly, I don't know, but stop teaching this. Stop.

Listen to your peers on this board and try to learn something. There is a reason everyone in this thread disagrees with your backwards method: it is dangerous. As an instructor you have a responsibility to know what you are teaching, and safety lies in the balance.

[767]

Then you don't understand the aerodynamics of a stall. Lowering the nose has nothing to do with accelerating; airspeed only has an indirect correlation to angle of attack. When you stall on approach you're already in a descent, and therefore your relative airflow is from below you. Unless you lower the nose, you can never reduce the angle of attack below the stall. Once you're in slow flight, increaing the angle of attack causes an increase in the rate of descent, which will change the relative airflow and increase the angle of attack further, making the stall worse. Failing to teach your students to lower the nose is simply dangerous; yes, you'll lose some altitude, but that's inevitable after a stall has occured. By lowering the nose to break the stall, you're minimizing the amount of altitude lost. Indeed, raising the nose on approach to try to extend the glide is one of the largest causes of accidents among private pilots, and the solution is always, ALWAYS to push the nose down.

Thanks for replying modi13. I dont mean to get off topic with slow flight, but I would like to say a few things about ex11. I understand and AGREE that you should reduce the AOA asap after stalling, however, dont you think that on a 172, the propeller slipstream will make the elevator more effective (to reduce AOA)? Not only that, power also helps reduce the rate of descent. My student stalled once in a 152, it was a dual flight. If I delayed the power, i wouldve crashed. It was power first, then nose down. Different aircraft will have their seperate procedures, but for the sake of argument, lets use a 172. Correct me if im wrong, but the purpose of teaching slow flight to students is to show them the onset of a stall, and also to show them how to maintain altitude and airspeed when operating in slow flight speed range (so that if they come on a low approach when landing, they add power instead of pitching up). With respect to your post above in bold, I tell my students that in slow flight, use power to maintain ALTITUDE, and use elevators (attitude) to maintain AIRSPEED. According to my opinion, a stall should be recovered with MINIMUM height loss, and using power is the best way to do it. If you lower the nose first, you will lose more altitude. If you stall at cruise altitude, of course, its not as dangerous compared to stalling at 100 ft above ground. So if at cruise altitude, sure, lower the nose first. But ill still disagree (with respect to c172) of lowering the nose at 100 ft AGL, power first!

[767]

Consider how difficult it is to climb in slow flight, even with full power. Now consider trying to do that from beyond the stall. There simply isn't enough power available to claw your way out of that situation. Again, delaying lowering the nose will only make it worse.

If your already at full power (climb in slow flight), then the next step is to lower the nose to reduce the AOA / accelerate, as i stated before. I never said i teach them to "delay" lowering the nose. It should be done immediately after the power. My advice, dont delay lowering the nose.

[767]

Picture youself flying a glider, if you stall the plane what is the first thing you do? You lower the nose of course. The rudder is used to keep the wings level/ball centered.

If you give full opposite rudder and full throttle before unstalling the wing you will do a snap roll if you have enough HP. You always unstall the wing first regardless of your angle of bank.

How do you give throttle in a glider?

Of course i would lower the nose if it was a glider. But if there was a wing drop, i would deal with that first, while simultaneously lowering the nose.

And i wish gliders have power...

[modi13]

dont you think that on a 172, the propeller slipstream will make the elevator more effective (to reduce AOA)?

The aircraft already has a tendency to nose over, for the very purpose of recovering from a stall, and I've never had an issue with elevator authority at any airspeed. The tail isn't stalled, so the amount of airflow over it is largely irrelevant compared to the ailerons.

With respect to your post above in bold, I tell my students that in slow flight, use power to maintain ALTITUDE, and use elevators (attitude) to maintain AIRSPEED.

Yes, but in slow flight you're still flying. After the stall there's insufficient lift to maintain level flight, so if you're trying to use power alone to get the aircraft flying you might as well try to hang it on its prop. It won't happen. You need to get the aircraft flying again, which you can't do unless you break the stall by lowering the nose.

According to my opinion, a stall should be recovered with MINIMUM height loss, and using power is the best way to do it. If you lower the nose first, you will lose more altitude.

No. You will always lose altitude after a stall, but if you aren't producing lift you'll lose more altitude. You might lose 20 feet by lowering the nose, but you'll lose that entire 100 if you don't; it's all about minimizing the loss. Would you ever tell a student who entered slow flight on final to raise the nose to try to extend the glide? Again, the amount of power required to maintain level flight is so significantly larger for every extra degree of A of A beyond the stall that you will not be able to hold your altitude, even at full power. Look at the power-required curve. http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/powercurve.gif In slow flight, the amount of power required gets exponentially larger, and the effect only gets more severe beyond the stall.

If your already at full power (climb in slow flight), then the next step is to lower the nose to reduce the AOA / accelerate, as i stated before.

If you do this, you will descend. It all comes back to the power required curve, and when you redirect some of that power towards acceleration instead of maintaining altitude, you will descend. Once you've accelerated out of slow flight, however, then the amount of power required to climb is decreased, and it's possible to climb at lower power settings. The point of lowering the nose after a stall is to get above max endurance, to the point where the power required to climb is low enough for your engine to actually produce it.

[767]

Yes, but in slow flight you're still flying. After the stall there's insufficient lift to maintain level flight, so if you're trying to use power alone to get the aircraft flying you might as well try to hang it on its prop. It won't happen. You need to get the aircraft flying again, which you can't do unless you break the stall by lowering the nose.

Yes but you missed my point again. I never said that you use power alone. You have to combine everything. The sequence at "low altitude" should be power first, then lower the nose. If your at high altitudes, lower the nose first if you like, or use power first, pick one. For students, its best to make it a habit for them, that is, to add power first. In my last post i showed a case of me in a 152 with a student.

it's all about minimizing the loss.

We both agree on this, however, you like to put the nose down first, and i like to add power first!!

Would you ever tell a student who entered slow flight on final to raise the nose to try to extend the glide?

of course not. but the student will most likely raise the nose if not told about the danger.

Again, the amount of power required to maintain level flight is so significantly larger for every extra degree of A of A beyond the stall that you will not be able to hold your altitude, even at full power. Look at the power-required curve. http://www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/powercurve.gif In slow flight, the amount of power required gets exponentially larger, and the effect only gets more severe beyond the stall.

I agree 100%. But after stall recovery, you dont continue at full power for the remainder of flight... you climb back to your altitude and resume normal cruise.

If you do this, you will descend. It all comes back to the power required curve, and when you redirect some of that power towards acceleration instead of maintaining altitude, you will descend. Once you've accelerated out of slow flight, however, then the amount of power required to climb is decreased, and it's possible to climb at lower power settings. The point of lowering the nose after a stall is to get above max endurance, to the point where the power required to climb is low enough for your engine to actually produce it.

same as above.

[trampbike]

Should the student stall on low approach for whatever reason, i would prefer they add power first before lowering the nose, and yes they should overshoot. Lowering the nose and then adding power, hmmm... well, Im not comfortable with that when flying low.

Funny, I would not be comfortable not lowering the nose first! How many accidents actually occurred exactly because people do not want to lower the nose when flying low?? Lowering the nose is the first thing to do. Stalls are 100% related to the angle of attack, and the elevators are the control surface that affect the AoA. You might want to add power pretty fast, but please lower the nose first.

Pop quiz: what's an aircraft's stalling speed at zero G?

Another pop quiz: What is your stall speed at the maximum g-load your aircraft was certified for (ex: 3.8g for normal category)?

Sadly, there are way too many instructors that can't answer correctly to that basic question

You are refering to the manouvering speed. That is derived from the design load factor. You take the square root of the load factor times the normal stall speed. Example... 6 G safe load factor for a plane with 70 mph stall speed.

Square root of 6=2.449 2.449x70 mph stall speed gives a manouvering speed of around 170 mph

Yup! Students should understand what Va really represents, but so many instructors don't even know... they just know that beyond Va, full control deflection is not permitted.

There's a very simple graph that everyone should see and show to students. On the x axis, you have the speed and on the y axis, the load factor. Then you draw a curve (the positive part of a parabola) that passes through zero-zero. This curve is the stall. Anything over the curve, your not in normal flight. At x=Vs, you are at y=1g. At x=Va, you are at y=3.8g (let's say for a normal category). Past Va and 3.8g, the curve is now a horizontal line, because when exceeding Va and the max load factor, you might break the plane before stalling. Then you explain that this graph moves with the weight, and it can also be drawn in the negative g side, with different values thought. With such a graph, people can understand that stall can actually be a good thing for them and their airplane, because it prevents it from breaking. They can also understand why the heavier the weight, the higher the Va.

EDIT: here's one v g diagram with a bit more info http://www.free-online-private-pilot-gr ... iagram.gif

By the way, can someone tell me what the caution range actually consists of? Seems like a pretty random airspeed at the bottom of the range (the upper part, Vne, is a bit more obvious!)

Thanks

[modi13]

767, you seem to have little understanding of the aerodynamics involved in a stall. Anything can fly if sufficient thrust is applied to it, so long as the thrust is angled downward to create a vertical component to counteract gravity. This is prohibitive, however, because of the size of the engine and the amount of fuel necessary to maintain level flight. By adding a wing, air is deflected downward, producing an equal and opposite reaction, which is a force acting up and back that we divide into components called lift and induced drag. In essence, all the wing does is transform some of the engine's forward thrust into vertical lift, with the downside of the production of drag and loss of airspeed. Therefore, the addition of power can only cause a reduction in the rate of descent in two ways: one, the wing is pulled forward faster, deflecting more air downward, and creating more lift; or two, the thrust line is at or near 90 degrees to the horizontal so that all of the thrust the engine is producing is vertical. As the second is impractical, we must focus on the first. Since, beyond the stall, the wing is already producing insufficient lift to maintain level flight, the addition of power will have a minimal effect on the amount of lift being produced, and therefore the rate of descent. If you're descending at 1000 fpm after the stall and add full power, you might reduce the rate of descent by 100 or 200 fpm, but until you're actually flying again you cannot maintain level flight or climb. No matter what you do, you will descend, but lowering the nose and breaking the stall gets the aircraft flying again, whereas after adding power you're still stalled. You might reduce the rate of descent, but all that will do is soften the touchdown when you hit the perimeter fence.
While recognizing the symptoms of an approaching stall is an important reason for teaching slow flight, the real emphasis should be on recognizing that when you pitch back, your rate of descent increases. As counterintuitive as it seems, the only possible way to improve the situation is by lowering the nose. By adding power you can arrest your descent, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re in slow flight and that if you pitch back you’ll descend more rapidly. While using the back side of the power curve is very useful for short-field approaches, not understanding this principle causes an enormous number of pilots to land short of the runway. The same problem exists after the stall, but to a much greater extent.
Ideally, the actions for recovery should be done concurrently, but how much experience and training does it take to be able to gain that level of coordination? A 60-hour private pilot who has difficulty recognizing that a stall has occurred when doing it intentionally is much less likely to be on top of the recovery than an instructor who performs them daily. Consider the amount of consternation and fear they have, and how that affects their reaction time; they simply will not perform all those actions at the same time. The reason we teach them to do things in a proper order is to emphasize the most important actions for the recovery, in this case getting unstalled after having stalled. If you teach them to do everything at once, you’re ignoring one of the principles of instructing. Otherwise, they’ll focus on the thing they think is worst, which is usually roll, as it’s much more noticeable than the nose lowering a bit. For that matter, just like in slow flight, their instinctive reaction to seeing the nose dropping will be to pull back, which will only make the situation worse. There is nothing that can correct a stall other than not being stalled any more.
I want you to explain to me how, aerodynamically, adding power will help get out of the stall, and to address my point that adding power will raise the nose and deepen the stall.

[MichaelP]

767 is advocating exactly what leads to stall-spin accidents and death.

If he has these wrong ideas then there's a Class 1 instructor out there who either missed this or has wrong ideas, and there's a CFI who is missing this... How many other instructors at his school teach it this way?
Such a method is propogated and the future is a whole lot less safe for people influenced by it.

As I wrote before, applying rudder and power while having the stick back at the stall is the way to do either a snap roll or spin, and a snap leads to a spin in any case.

For slow flight recovery yes, the power is applied while controlling the yaw and the nose is lowered gently to maintain altitude... We screwed up the landing and we don't want to hit the ground. But we haven't stalled yet!

The stall itself requires lowering the nose while applying full power and controlling the yaw.
Even if you are going to hit the ground it is always always better to do it with some measure of control.
If we use 767s method we relinquish control of the aeroplane and we put our future into whatever God we might worship's hands... Or we might be reborn to do it better in our next life (Karma for hurting someone else might be a pain though!).

There are four developments and four different recoveries.
1. Slow flight - 2. stall - 3. 'deep' incipient spin - and 4. spin
We had better teach students to recognise each one and recover from each of them correctly.

[mcrit]

Hit rudder, unload stick; unload stick, hit rudder......should really be happening at the same time.