5 ms·

What the hell kind of airplane are you flying where you add power to recover from a stall? Unless you're flying something with a very high thrust to weight rati

by ohazi 14y ago

What the hell kind of airplane are you flying where you add power to recover from a stall? Unless you're flying something with a very high thrust to weight ratio, you should nose down to break the stall, then add power afterwards.

yan 14y ago
Adding power is one of the first things you learn when covering stalls during the private pilot license progression.
- jcoby 14y ago
  Pitch, power, airspeed, attitude. Nosing down is the first move.
- scrumper 14y ago
  In a regular single piston engine aircraft it's nose down, then add power. You always fix angle of attack first. Same applies to a power-on (eg takeoff) stall: nose down.
  - yan 14y ago
    Concur, nose down first. It's not that no one mentions adding power (which is what OP implied). Recovery was always pitch down to regain airspeed while reaching with the other hand to begin adding throttle, but power is still "one of the first things."
artmageddon 14y ago
The author has it wrong, and I hope he corrects it. If you hear a buzzing noise, that means the airplane is going to stall if it loses more speed, but there's a chance that the speed is too low given how high the nose might be. Adding too much power at that moment, depending on the exact level of the nose, will cause the plane to lurch upward, which would definitely increase the chances of a stall. The right step would be to lower the nose to get more lift over the wings, and slowly add additional power as more airspeed is gained.
- eduardordm 14y ago
  Not really, what could happen is a wing stall on single engines, but chances are that wont happen. :D That's a procedural recovery that fits most airplanes, put the nose down on a king air and depending on your altitude, you are doomed.
  - ohazi 14y ago
    No, this definitely isn't the appropriate procedure for most airplanes, and the few situations where it was taught as a standard are now being reevaluated. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAProposesStallRecoveryChange_205872-1.html http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAProposesStallRecover...
    - eduardordm 14y ago
      Those are class heavy, not light :D
      - ohazi 14y ago
        Yes. So we've now covered the range of cases and in each of them your suggestion is wrong. Light aircraft pilots should pitch down first, then add power, regardless of CG. Heavy aircraft and jet pilots were previously taught to add power first, but are now taught to pitch down first, then add power. That's it - you always need to pitch down first, and then add power. The airplane doesn't care where your nose is pointed, and CG really doesn't matter here.
        mvgoogler 14y ago
        So, if you're saying that if you're descending through 80 feet AGL and you hear the stall-warning horn, you're going to pitch the nose down _first_ ? Sorry - if I'm throwing in full-power first and doing whatever I have to do do to get leveled out and stabilized. Adding power in a single-engine will immediately increase airflow over the wings and thus _reduce_ the angle of attack. Yes - you will have to fight the tendency of the nose to come up, but low to the ground there aren't really too many options. It's basically a go-around, and the go-around procedure is power-first. ATCs might be able to recover from a stall while only losing 100 feet, but most private pilots will need much more and an untrained pilot would not even get close.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- ohazi 14y ago
  ...and if the nose is up? You're not going to power your way out of the stall, even in a King Air - you still need to pitch down first. This is one of the factors that put Air France 447 into a deep stall prior to their unfortunate end.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - iliis 14y ago
      Oh, I had a lot of fun with (spinning) stalls in light planes, they certainly exist ;)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jpablo 14y ago
Wasn't that what caused Air France's 447 crash?
- teamonkey 14y ago
  From what I can recall, AF447 was stalling but the fly-by-wire system was stabilising the stall. Normally the FBW system wouldn't let the pilot stall but an earlier event caused it to enter some kind of unusual mode. That same event also made the pilot mistrust the instrumentation for the remainder of the flight. Because of this and the stable handling (+ bad visibility, lack of training and a whole load of other contributing factors) he didn't believe his speed was low enough to be stalling.

by ohazi 14y ago

yan 14y ago

Adding power is one of the first things you learn when covering stalls during the private pilot license progression.

jcoby 14y ago
Pitch, power, airspeed, attitude. Nosing down is the first move.
scrumper 14y ago
In a regular single piston engine aircraft it's nose down, then add power. You always fix angle of attack first. Same applies to a power-on (eg takeoff) stall: nose down.
- yan 14y ago
  Concur, nose down first. It's not that no one mentions adding power (which is what OP implied). Recovery was always pitch down to regain airspeed while reaching with the other hand to begin adding throttle, but power is still "one of the first things."

artmageddon 14y ago

The author has it wrong, and I hope he corrects it. If you hear a buzzing noise, that means the airplane is going to stall if it loses more speed, but there's a chance that the speed is too low given how high the nose might be. Adding too much power at that moment, depending on the exact level of the nose, will cause the plane to lurch upward, which would definitely increase the chances of a stall. The right step would be to lower the nose to get more lift over the wings, and slowly add additional power as more airspeed is gained.

eduardordm 14y ago
Not really, what could happen is a wing stall on single engines, but chances are that wont happen. :D That's a procedural recovery that fits most airplanes, put the nose down on a king air and depending on your altitude, you are doomed.
- ohazi 14y ago
  No, this definitely isn't the appropriate procedure for most airplanes, and the few situations where it was taught as a standard are now being reevaluated. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAProposesStallRecoveryChange_205872-1.html http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAProposesStallRecover...
  - eduardordm 14y ago
    Those are class heavy, not light :D
    - ohazi 14y ago
      Yes. So we've now covered the range of cases and in each of them your suggestion is wrong. Light aircraft pilots should pitch down first, then add power, regardless of CG. Heavy aircraft and jet pilots were previously taught to add power first, but are now taught to pitch down first, then add power. That's it - you always need to pitch down first, and then add power. The airplane doesn't care where your nose is pointed, and CG really doesn't matter here.
      - mvgoogler 14y ago
        So, if you're saying that if you're descending through 80 feet AGL and you hear the stall-warning horn, you're going to pitch the nose down _first_ ? Sorry - if I'm throwing in full-power first and doing whatever I have to do do to get leveled out and stabilized. Adding power in a single-engine will immediately increase airflow over the wings and thus _reduce_ the angle of attack. Yes - you will have to fight the tendency of the nose to come up, but low to the ground there aren't really too many options. It's basically a go-around, and the go-around procedure is power-first. ATCs might be able to recover from a stall while only losing 100 feet, but most private pilots will need much more and an untrained pilot would not even get close.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ohazi 14y ago
...and if the nose is up? You're not going to power your way out of the stall, even in a King Air - you still need to pitch down first. This is one of the factors that put Air France 447 into a deep stall prior to their unfortunate end.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - iliis 14y ago
    Oh, I had a lot of fun with (spinning) stalls in light planes, they certainly exist ;)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jpablo 14y ago

Wasn't that what caused Air France's 447 crash?

teamonkey 14y ago
From what I can recall, AF447 was stalling but the fly-by-wire system was stabilising the stall. Normally the FBW system wouldn't let the pilot stall but an earlier event caused it to enter some kind of unusual mode. That same event also made the pilot mistrust the instrumentation for the remainder of the flight. Because of this and the stable handling (+ bad visibility, lack of training and a whole load of other contributing factors) he didn't believe his speed was low enough to be stalling.