Has Stall Training been eliminated

[TrilliumFlt]

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... hute!.html

The 172 has no nasty stall characertistic that I'm aware of.

[CpnCrunch]

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified ... hute!.html

The 172 has no nasty stall characertistic that I'm aware of.

Are many Cirrus activations due to stall/spins? I thought the main advantage was during an engine failure if you're not flying over Saskatchewan, or if you royally screw up IFR, or after structural failure.

[flyndad]

Stall training still in the syllabus.

[PilotDAR]

Deployment of a BRS 'chute does not result in recovery from a stall, but rather induces one for the rest of the flight. Anyone who feels that they need a BRS in a 172 should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely.

[photofly]

Don’t forget the “I’m not sitting in that plane of yours unless you fit a parachute” factor.

Or maybe the pilot needs to land in a short field. Really short.

[TrilliumFlt]

Deployment of a BRS 'chute does not result in recovery from a stall, but rather induces one for the rest of the flight. Anyone who feels that they need a BRS in a 172 should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely.

Fully agree, 100% or the training they received that leaves them feeling they need one.

[PilotDAR]

If a pilot is not comfortable doing stalls, there is a solution - do more, lots more...

I have done literally thousands of stalls. The most extreme, at TC's request, was demonstration of spin resistance in a Grand Caravan, stall to the break at 75% power, 30 degree bank, one ball out in yaw. It stalled, I recovered, dozens of times, then rode through it all again as the TC Test Pilot reflew it ( I think he was unsure to agree with my report until he did it himself - or...).

I did dozens of stalls in a 185 amphibian last week, trying to set up a non compliant stall warning system. As the stall warning system was not working, my indication of an approach to stall was that when I slowed more, it stalled. No big deal, just be sure to have some sky under you, and keep the ball in the middle.

The only airplane I have ever stalled which was un-nerving was the turbine DC-3. I suggest avoiding stalling that type. In fairness, it's a 1930's airframe design, which does not incorporate some more recent aerodynamic refinements which improve handling at the approach to stall.

[CpnCrunch]

Anyone who feels that they need a BRS in a 172 should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely.

...says the person from Ontario. Some of us fly places where a forced landing would be very difficult due to trees and terrain. Also, it would be comforting in the event of structural failure (which I've experienced). I don't have a BRS in my 172, but I am very careful about Va in turbulence, never spinning or spiral diving it ever, corrosion, etc.

[PilotDAR]

Some of us fly places where a forced landing would be very difficult due to trees and terrain.

And that's why I wrote: "should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely"

Yeah, there are some places where a crossing in any single is scary, I've flown the BC/Alberta/Quebec/Labrador and a few other mountains in a single over the years. I'm not saying that a single shouldn't do it, but it's a different mindset from flying over farmland. My personal preference would still be to control the plane to the point of whatever "landing" I can accomplish. I agree that there have been some successful BRS descents into the trees, yup some things do work. But would I equip a plane with BRS, at the expense of dollars/payload/maintenance to balance that risk? Not for me. If I'm that in doubt, I'll choose a different route, or a different plane.

[CpnCrunch]

Yeah, there are some places where a crossing in any single is scary, I've flown the BC/Alberta/Quebec/Labrador and a few other mountains in a single over the years. I'm not saying that a single shouldn't do it, but it's a different mindset from flying over farmland. My personal preference would still be to control the plane to the point of whatever "landing" I can accomplish. I agree that there have been some successful BRS descents into the trees, yup some things do work. But would I equip a plane with BRS, at the expense of dollars/payload/maintenance to balance that risk? Not for me. If I'm that in doubt, I'll choose a different route, or a different plane.

I agree that I don't think it's worth the expense and giving up the useful load on a 172. However, I think it would be nice to have, and would give a certain amount of peace of mind. There are certain risks we take when flying, and we can either accept the risk, not do that type of flying, or mitigate that small risk with something like a BRS.

[newlygrounded]

Deployment of a BRS 'chute does not result in recovery from a stall, but rather induces one for the rest of the flight. Anyone who feels that they need a BRS in a 172 should be rethinking how they are using the plane entirely.

Crazy thought but not everyone who flies in a plane is a pilot. Some regular people feel safer having a chute. I know people who won't go up but would change their mind when the sr22 is mentioned.

[fish4life]

If I flew over the prairies mainly I don’t care about a chute, but if I flew all over BC or a lot at night a chute would definitely be nice to have since I’d rather hit the ground with No forward speed in those cases

[youhavecontrol]

There's so many good reasons to have one that aren't related to a pilot's skill level.

[DanWEC]

Who knows why it was installed? Maybe a partner who wouldn't fly without it, maybe an older owner who wanted the security.
I doubt a pilot who decided they didn't know how to recover from a stall was the motive.

[PilotDAR]

Some regular people feel safer having a chute. I know people who won't go up but would change their mind when the sr22 is mentioned.

It's worth having a complete understanding of the factors. The stall/spin recovery characteristics of a 172 are very well understood, and many pilots have experience with stall avoidance and recovery for a 172.

For the SR22, the inclusion of the "CAPS" (BRS) was not entirely for engine failure/pilot incapacitation reasons:

SR20, SR22 and SR22T:
Equivalent Level of Safety Finding ACE-96-5/A: FAR 23.221; The ballistic recovery
system fitted as standard equipment on the SR-20 is based on the General Aviation Recovery
Device (GARD) 150 certificated for the Cessna 150/152 series airplane. Special conditions for the
GARD prior to the SR-20 were for a supplemental and not a primary safety device. Cirrus requested
credit for the system by accepting it as a safety device equivalent to §23.221 Spins.

I won't claim to be expert at Cirrus certification, but from the "man on the street" understanding, an equivalent level of safety finding may be granted: When the applicant (Cirrus) requests it (it's not offered), and [usually] because the airplane could not demonstrate compliance with a requirement, so an alternate means was proposed as equivalent. In this case, the foregoing statement can be understood to mean that the Cirrus could not meet the requirements for spin recovery (applicable to all singles), so Cirrus proposed a 'chute instead, and the FAA agreed.

That's fine if it's what you want, and I agree that the BRS provides an extra layer of safety in the case of engine failure or pilot incapacitation. But, what I understand is that to recover a mishandled stall [in an otherwise airworthy plane] the pilot action is to deploy the 'chute, where any other type, the skilled pilot would aerodynamically recover. So the pilot mishandles the downwind to base turn at Buttonville (which was already too far out for Pilot DAR's liking) the plane stalls, drops a wing, and the pilot pulls the 'chute. Hopefully there's enough altitude for the 'chute to work. Once, at Buttonville, it did not, a friend witnessed the crash into a business area.

In general, stall training will always be important, and more so, stall practice! If you choose to have a BRS, that's up to you, but understand why you chose it, its operational limitations, and what the compromises may be.

In my opinion, not all people are meant to fly, and some people are meant to fly only in airliners. If the presence or absence of a BRS is a deciding factor in flying a GA airplane, that person probably might be more relaxed not flying GA.

[photofly]

It’s also possible that Cirrus wanted the ‘chute for marketing purposes, and having decided on that they were able to save a bunch of money by not engaging in a spin testing programme. I think it’s very unlikely that fitting a heavy expensive outside-sourced parachute was a cheaper option than minor aerodynamic tweaks to enable one turn spin recoveries.

One they specified a parachute, it’s not that they couldn’t meet 23.221, they didn’t need to find out.

Pilots’ partners love parachutes, and I’m sure Cirrus got the sale of a lot more airplanes approved by the family money committee by having one.

[digits_]

One they specified a parachute, it’s not that they couldn’t meet 23.221, they didn’t need to find out.

It also made the parachute a required system. If they did to the spin training program, the parachute would likely become optional in the future, leaving open the door for cirruses crashing without having a parachute, yet pilots (and family) thinking that the parachutes were faulty and didn't deploy.

It also takes away the temptation for a cash strapped pilot to remove the parachute when it needs to be inspected/'overhauled'.

[JasonE]

172 stalls are quite boring and benign. If that scares you, don't fly.

[broken_slinky]

Don’t forget the “I’m not sitting in that plane of yours unless you fit a parachute” factor.

That would be my bet too. Although, maybe the owner previously experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?

[PilotDAR]

....experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?

Is that a thing? Ever, in GA history?

[photofly]

Although, maybe the owner previously experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?

Um ...

....experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?

Is that a thing? Ever, in GA history?

Well there are a few spar AD's around for a good reason!

[broken_slinky]

....experienced an airframe failure that was only recoverable with a chute?

Is that a thing? Ever, in GA history?

Absolutely. Now I'm of the "just fly the damn plane" camp but if I had a failure that was impossible to pilot safely back to terraferma, I think I'd be happy to have the option of pulling that lovely red handle.

Could a chute have saved these two? Perhaps.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safet ... raft-apart

Maybe with this one too:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2020/07 ... for-pilot/

This was a pretty well reported accident that indicated 2 other planes in North America suffered similar fates.
https://www.flyingmag.com/new-zealand-v ... p-details/

Possibly with this one too, if the pilot realized what was happening, cut the engine and pulled the chute before the spiral was sunk in deep.
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safet ... ht-breakup

Maybe a bit too big of a bird to be considered GA?
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/pro ... in-flight/

[PilotDAR]

Hmmm, the five cited examples have not persuaded me. I am certainly not expert at BRS systems, so open to more knowledgeable input, but I suspect that all of those events involved speeds or unusual attitude/out of control such that the pilot would have been outside a 'chute deployment speed and attitude envelope anyway. But, I'm opening to learning if it is different.

The non certified Biplane, well that could be a different story, no comment on that one...

For the other four, it seems to me that attentive piloting to prevent excursion from controlled flight/overspeed would have prevented anything bad happening. "Flying the plane" would have prevented the plane breaking up, and risking being in a situation where the broken falling plane never entered a deployment envelope anyway.

Well there are a few spar AD's around for a good reason!

Indeed...

C210 VH-SUX losing a wing during survey would have been prevented by anything close to a visual inspection of a very accessible area of the spar. Maybe a BRS would have saved that, but the inspection would have been much less costly, and way safer in the long run.

The two times that PA-28's have lost wings, and AD's resulted, at altitude, yes, a BRS might have made all the difference - but both of those planes were low when they broke up, and again, a good inspection, already understood would have turned up the defect which resulted in the breakup.

We can carry around a lot of extra stuff in a plane to protect for what happens after it goes wrong, or, inspect, maintain, and fly so it doesn't go wrong.

I still believe in life jackets though!

[OtherRedBaron]

I still believe in life jackets though!

As my instructor taught me, having trained out of YTZ in winter... there's nothing down there but drowning.

Would I wear one at the soaring club, with nothing but flat fields around? No. Would I wear one over water, with nothing but drowning around? Yes, absolutely.

As for stall training, I recently did some in an SGS 2-32, a glider with washin, and therefore very poor stall handling. At least with soaring clubs, yes, it's still very much a thing.

[JasonE]

Soaring clubs require all members to complete a spin check each spring. The first time I did I one in a glider, I pushed inverted. Gliders don't require much stick forward for recovery apparently!

I have a hard time resisting a kick of the rudder whenever I stall a plane Citabria likes to pop out on it's own after 1 rotation unless you have someone in the back.

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.