Stall Recovery

[JimG]

I've been taught as most I have meet have also ,that the recovery from a practised stall must be completed by no lower than 1500 ft AGL. I accept this is the rule however a brief look into the manuals and I can't find where that rule is written.

 

Can anyone point me to the right place to find that.?

 

cheers

 

JimG

 

 

[motzartmerv]

1500??

 

I'll have a look for the rule, but its normally recovery by 3000 ft agl.

 

 

[poteroo]

Unfortunately, most stall, or stall/spin accidents, don't happen above 3000ft agl.

 

I know what the book says - and I agree that initial stalling needs to be >3000 agl, but sooner or later we need to introduce stall, and incipient stall, recoveries much lower.....where it usually happens.

 

Everyone has become so risk averse, so liability averse, so terrified of litigation, and so bum covering in the bureaucracies - that they are missing the point completely with regards to safety in lower level handling. It should be part of both the RAAus and GA syllabus's.

 

happy days,

 

 

[djpacro]

Comment deleted - refer later post.

 

 

[sseeker]

If you're renting from a school be careful because chances are they won't let you do it below 3000ft AGL

 

-Andrew

 

 

[facthunter]

Just as an aside, the way stalls are taught is almost worthless. Most stalls occur in a turn in U/L's Nev

 

 

[Owi]

Actually, I've been taught (in GA and RA) that the recovery has to be made before 3000ft AGL. In reading this thread, I've now realised that this is probably because FTFs add on a little more to the CASA specified minimum - just in case a student really stuffs up the recovery and needs that bit more leeway. On my first few attempts at stall recovery, I lost about 200 - 300 ft because there seemed such a lot to focus on and then suddenly - wing drop! - and my instructor had to correct this. Of course, with a little more practice I now understand that it's not such a lot of work anymore and can recover within 50-100 ft.

 

The idea of stall practice is to learn to recognise when a plane is about to stall in flight. It can happen at any stage and speed, not just low & slow and/or in turns. Of course, it also varies with the aircraft.

 

Just my 2c worth.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Is the air in coloured layers, denser in some areas, grainy>.

 

Sure most fatal spins and stalls are down low, often when turning final.

 

But why on earth would you want to PRACTICE one without a second chance if something goes wrong?

 

 

[frank marriott]

1500 ft minimum per the CAR

DJP - which CAR is that?

 

I had it in my mind that the min height was 3000ft but when I went to check my memory all I can find is the Aerobatic reference in CAR 155 - which is probably where I got it into my head [was a long time ago].

 

155 excludes straight and steady stalls and turns below 60 deg. [part quoted below]

 

I'm not challenging your quote - just at this stage I can't find any reference.

 

Frank M

 

CAR 1988

 

155 Acrobatic flight

 

(1) A pilot in command of an aircraft must not do any of the following:

 

(a) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight at night;

 

(b) fly the aircraft in acrobatic flight that is not in V.M.C.;

 

© fly the aircraft in a particular kind of acrobatic flight if the certificate of airworthiness, or the flight manual, for the aircraft does not specify that the aircraft may perform that kind of acrobatic flight.

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), straight and steady stalls or turns in which the angle of bank does not exceed 60 degrees shall be deemed not to be acrobatic flight.

 

(3) A person must not engage in acrobatic flight in an aircraft:

 

(a) at a height lower than 3,000 feet above the highest point of the terrain, or any obstacle thereon, within a radius of 600 metres of a line extending vertically below the aircraft; or

 

(b) over a city, town, populous area, regatta, race meeting or meeting for public games or sports.

 

 

[Kenchhidu]

I know it's not written as a reg. But CASAs Flight Instructor Manual says in the Chapter on Stalling, "Before carrying out any advanced stalling exercise it is important that sufficient height is gained to ensure recovery by 3000 feet above ground level and that the aeroplane is in the appropriate training area."

 

Chris Kent.

 

 

[djpacro]

I might have to plead senility, Frank, and delete my earlier post as I was referring to a document that I was given during my instructor course ( I normally check the regs again before a comment like that).

 

 

[old man emu]

It would appear from CAR 155 that there is no legal impediment to deliberately stalling an aircraft at any height, since a deliberate, straight and steady stall is not deemed to be an acrobatic manoeuvre. However, the lowest altitude that it is legally permissible to engage in straight and steady flight is 500 ft AGL.

 

Therefore, the lowest altitude that one can deliberately stall and aircraft from straight and steady flight is 500 ft plus the height expected to be lost in the recovery process.

 

It is a wise pilot who acknowledges the safety value of clear air beneath the aircraft.

 

If one could trace the origins of this 3000' limit, it seems most likely that it arises from someone's failing to read subregulation 2 of CAR 155 and jumping straight to subregulation 3.

 

OME

 

 

[frank marriott]

Chris and DJP No problem,

 

I agree with your comments - and what Chris states about the flight instructor's manual is probably where I got the misinformed opinion - since posting my query I have spoken to a Chief Pilot and a Grade 2 CASA instructor and a senior RAA instructor and all agree 3000 ft is the alitude from their memory.

 

I didn't realise I was in the student learning forum - but it helps to keep us up to date anyway I think this matter would be of interest to all .

 

I think making me check the regs since joining this forum has updated my knowledge of the rules - I have been flying GA [CPL for 30 years] and RAA for nearly 3 years and by being a member here my knowledge of the relevant laws has been updated.

 

When someone makes a comment which is contrary to your belief then it makes a reason to look up the CURRENT regs to see if one is out of date and that cannot be a bad thing.

 

My apologies to Jim G, who asked a simple question, but the answer is not a simple one as he will appreciate from these many comments.

 

Frank M

 

 

[facthunter]

You legally stall a plane when landing, hopefully from about half an inch above the ground. I've seen some done from about 15 feet. Horrible to watch and although they can amuse the onlookers, could result in damage and injury. As far as instruction and training, why not give yourself a fair bit of height. Some students have been known to "freeze" on the controls under these circumstances, so a bit of "air under the wings" is a good idea. The usual stall where you know it is going to happen is limited in value. The nose high power off type of thing. The stall that will get you is usually associated with a turn with a more "normal" nose attitude. Ensure that your instructor covers those fully and explains them fully. Nev

 

 

[flying dog]

Then there is the HASSEL list of things to do as well.

 

 

[djpacro]

The CAR 1988 rules are very hard to understand. Straight and steady stalls are not deemed to be aerobatics wrt para 1 only. Para 3 therefore applies so a minimum of 3,000 ft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It's an indictment of CASA's deteriorating standards that we have so many discussions where a student has to ask a question here because he can't find it in CASA files, then he gets a variety of answers here because of the over-complication and duplication of regulations, or even the lack of a simple master index.

 

As a result, earlier knowledge is lost. In the case of stalls it was always climb to recover above 3000 feet and do the checks and 360 degree turn.

 

Why?

 

Because you could drop down onto another aircraft, and in the city training areas this was quite likely, with most of them cruising around at 1500 feet, practising forced landings, and generally looking down at the ground.

 

Also because it's not to hard to fall into a spin, and unless you've had spin training, the drop could be a few hundred feet.

 

 

[eightyknots]

You legally stall a plane when landing, hopefully from about half an inch above the ground.

Yes, that is what I was thinking when I started to read this series of posts. I am glad you pointed this out Nev.

 

 

[Mazda]

The law is very clear in that there is no published minima, and this is where airmanship comes in. The HASELL checks include height sufficient to recover by ... whatever that may be for you. If your school says stall at a height sufficient to recover by 3000' AGL, that is what you should do. If you are relatively inexperienced, height is a good thing.

 

I remember doing some stalling training in a benign stalling aircraft with another commercial pilot (with spinning experience) so we elected to do our plain ordinary level power on stalls at the height we were at, I can't remember now, maybe 2000 or so. The other pilot was flying and he booted in full rudder when we had a minor wing drop, then did nothing when things started to get ugly. I took over and recovered, but that is probably why the schools (and CASA) recommend 3000'. If this commercial pilot who had done spin recovery training could do that, so could an ab initio student.

 

For interest, in the USA their aeros are down to 1500' as standard, not like 3000' here, but people are still permitted to do aeros above 3000' of course, or higher. It becomes a personal limitation, just like having a personal crosswind limit which may be below the published figure for the aircraft type.