Power-off stall recovery in Flight Training magazine

AOPA sends me Flight Training magazine every month and they discuss 'power off stall recovery' on page 42 of the current issue. As a power-off-at-all-times pilot, I don't get it.

I assume that the purpose of practicing power-off stalls is to practice for the scenario that the engine quits unexpectedly, the pilot tries to stretch the glide and pulls back the stick too far, and then the plane stalls. It's time to recover from the stall.

So the article says:
"8.Reduce back pressure...
9.Almost simultaneously add full power. This is when rudder pressure is important. All that power will increase left-turning tendencies, so be ready with some right rudder pressure."

But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass the PTS? What if the right wing had dropped in the stall?

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:03:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
AOPA sends me Flight Training magazine every month and they discuss 'power off stall recovery' on page 42 of the current issue. As a power-off-at-all-times pilot, I don't get it.



I assume that the purpose of practicing power-off stalls is to practice for the scenario that the engine quits unexpectedly, the pilot tries to stretch the glide and pulls back the stick too far, and then the plane stalls. It's time to recover from the stall.



So the article says:

"8.Reduce back pressure...

9.Almost simultaneously add full power. This is when rudder pressure is important. All that power will increase left-turning tendencies, so be ready with some right rudder pressure."



But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass the PTS? What if the right wing had dropped in the stall?

The more correct term is "Approach to landing stall" it does not pre-suppose that the engine has failed. There have been several DPEs in the area that follow the PTS, but all admit that the true power off, approach to land should be just as you imagine: trying to stretch the glide from a failed engine. THat does seem to be the real problem to solve.

There is another task for the commercial pilot rating that requires a precision 180-degree power off landing. Many power pilots have a real challenge making it happen and need many attempts to learn how to do it. Glider pilots do it every landing!!

Mike

On 5/14/2014 9:03 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
AOPA sends me Flight Training magazine every month and they discuss
'power off stall recovery' on page 42 of the current issue.
As a power-off-at-all-times pilot, I don't get it.

I assume that the purpose of practicing power-off stalls is to practice
for the scenario that the engine quits unexpectedly, the pilot tries to
stretch the glide and pulls back the stick too far, and then the
plane stalls.
It's time to recover from the stall.

So the article says:
"8.Reduce back pressure...
9.Almost simultaneously add full power. This is when rudder pressure is important.
All that power will increase left-turning tendencies, so be ready with
some right rudder pressure."

But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass the PTS?
What if the right wing had dropped in the stall?

I think a power off stall has more to do with recovering from a stall in
the landing pattern than a stall following an engine failure. In that
situation, adding power is a very good idea!

Story: I flew gliders for several years before I finally added ASEL to
my certificate. In my check ride I reverted to "glider pilot mode"
during one of my stalls and failed to add power. The DPE wasn't amused!
(Yes, I passed though.)

Vaughn

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
AOPA sends me Flight Training magazine every month and they discuss 'power off stall recovery' on page 42 of the current issue. As a power-off-at-all-times pilot, I don't get it.



I assume that the purpose of practicing power-off stalls is to practice for the scenario that the engine quits unexpectedly, the pilot tries to stretch the glide and pulls back the stick too far, and then the plane stalls. It's time to recover from the stall.



So the article says:

"8.Reduce back pressure...

9.Almost simultaneously add full power. This is when rudder pressure is important. All that power will increase left-turning tendencies, so be ready with some right rudder pressure."



But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass the PTS? What if the right wing had dropped in the stall

If you add power too soon or too quickly you will end up in a spin.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
AOPA sends me Flight Training magazine every month and they discuss 'power off stall recovery' on page 42 of the current issue. As a power-off-at-all-times pilot, I don't get it.



I assume that the purpose of practicing power-off stalls is to practice for the scenario that the engine quits unexpectedly, the pilot tries to stretch the glide and pulls back the stick too far, and then the plane stalls. It's time to recover from the stall.



So the article says:

"8.Reduce back pressure...

9.Almost simultaneously add full power. This is when rudder pressure is important. All that power will increase left-turning tendencies, so be ready with some right rudder pressure."



But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass the PTS? What if the right wing had dropped in the stall?

Your mistake is assuming that "power off" means power off. It does not, it means power at idle.

Dne �tvrtek, 15. května 2014 3:15:56 UTC+2 SoaringXCellence napsal(a):
...

There is another task for the commercial pilot rating that requires a precision 180-degree power off landing. Many power pilots have a real challenge making it happen and need many attempts to learn how to do it. Glider pilots do it every landing!!



disagree. Last year (my GPL clocking roughly 30years-1500h-100off-field landings until then) I decided to obtain my UL powered licence. Although inside glide-friendly WT-9, I have found power-off landing maneuver very different from glider one, and much more heart-beating. Imagine you do not have adjustable spoilers, and you have to fit to short field... Standard glider off-field maneuver is 10 times more comfortable for me :-).

In article SoaringXCellence writes:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:03:19 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

But I thought that the engine had died? Is this just training to pass th=
e PTS? What if the right wing had dropped in the stall?

The more correct term is "Approach to landing stall" it does not pre-suppos=
e that the engine has failed. There have been several DPEs in the area tha=
t follow the PTS, but all admit that the true power off, approach to land s=
hould be just as you imagine: trying to stretch the glide from a failed eng=
ine. THat does seem to be the real problem to solve.

I believe the issue is that, while engines are quite reliable, pilots still
get distracted and too slow in the pattern. Having them know how to recover
from the stall and immediately get climbing is important.

Power off gliding to maximum range is less important - the power planes
generally don't have polar charts that show the effects of weight on their
glide, and don't mention minimum sink at all.

There is another task for the commercial pilot rating that requires a preci=
sion 180-degree power off landing. Many power pilots have a real challenge=
making it happen and need many attempts to learn how to do it. Glider pil=
ots do it every landing!!

It seems to be an expected ability of ASEL private pilots, though, to be
able to make the field on a check ride, BFR, or at other times the instructor
is getting bored.

"Your engine just quit." Shortly later, "your flaps won't extend".

It might be more difficult for the pilot who is number 4 for landing when
abeam the numbers, and the pattern extends one or two miles downwind.

Alan

On Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:41:36 PM UTC+12, Alan wrote:
Power off gliding to maximum range is less important - the power planes
generally don't have polar charts that show the effects of weight on their
glide, and don't mention minimum sink at all.

It's the same as speed for maximum excess power, aka speed for maximum rate of climb.

Well, neglecting effects from prop thrust (or windmilling prop drag in the engine-off case) anyway.

And possibly in some cases the engine being unable to rev to maximum power at too low an airspeed -- but that's pretty bad design if it can't by airframe min drag speed.

And assuming that the aircraft isn't *so* powerful that it can climb at extreme angles where the wings need to generate substantially less lift than the weight.