Mastering the Power-on Stall

[poadeleted20]

Interesting - most of the instructors and examiners teach full power for this manuever in the 152/172/Warrior/Archer/DA20 class.

I realize that. However, it usually creates a picture of the power-on stall which is far different than what pilots see in the situations which really kill people. I think that actually contributes to rather than prevents those accidents, since the pilots can't believe they're really stalling at such a "normal" pitch attitude, as opposed to the absurd attitudes they've seen in training for the maneuver.

The 65% power (minimum allowable in the PTS) is usually reserved for folks doing the manuever in high performance airplanes.

It should be used for any plane if the pitch attitude is going to exceed 30 degrees (see 91.303 and 91.307 about that).

 

[dmccormack]

Performing a takeoff at the engine's 65% rated power at airports with lower altitudes is an excellent way to prepare oneself for what you'll see for ground roll in Denver in the summertime.

Just sayin'...

I've done all of the above with students. One was a bit too non-chalant and so I told him we were going to simulate hot, heavy, and humid.

When the trees whizzed by the wheel pants the eyes were opened! No more rolling along at 80 knots waiting for the airplane to fly off on its own!

 

[dmccormack]

I realize that. However, it usually creates a picture of the power-on stall which is far different than what pilots see in the situations which really kill people. I think that actually contributes to rather than prevents those accidents, since the pilots can't believe they're really stalling at such a "normal" pitch attitude, as opposed to the absurd attitudes they've seen in training for the maneuver.

Good point, but too often teach-to-the-test mindset limits stalls to PTS prep.

I demonstrate recover from level, climbing, and descending stalls (Yep -- power to idle, arrest the descent as though there were a bird or another airplane to avoid, don't add power, speed decays, horn squeals -- now what?)

I also teach recovery without power so they understand what's going on, and that reducing AoA is all that matters.

(Yeah, yeah, I know -- the FAA requires power simultaneous with reduction -- but there's no prohibition against exposing students to things not required on the PTS)

 

[Ted]

(Yeah, yeah, I know -- the FAA requires power simultaneous with reduction -- but there's no prohibition against exposing students to things not required on the PTS)

...and I think it's important for instructors to go beyond the PTS, within reason. Training doesn't have to (and shouldn't) end with a student's acquisition of a rating. I have students with as many hours as I do (sometimes more) who are learning new things.

 

[TMetzinger]

...and I think it's important for instructors to go beyond the PTS, within reason. Training doesn't have to (and shouldn't) end with a student's acquisition of a rating. I have students with as many hours as I do (sometimes more) who are learning new things.

I agree, but one also needs to teach the manuever the way the student will be tested on it in addition to all the variations that add insight and increase the student's range of experience.

Example - the power off stall PTS calls for the manuever to be done in a descent the way Dan describes it, as if you pulled up and forgot the power. There's also a lot of value in doing it by trying to maintain altitude while power (and airspeed) are decreasing and pitch attitude is increasing.

Doing a partial-power on stall has value as Ron notes, but a full-power stall (or at least the entry) can give a student the idea of the elevator trim stall possible in a go-around.

Hmm - 50 ways to stall your airplane:

Just yank the yoke back, Jack
Turn off the fan, Stan....

 

[Ted]

Agreed, Tim. If you aren't teaching the student what is expected of him or her on the checkride, then you're doing said student a disservice.

But if you aren't teaching the student the reasons behind the practice efforts and the things that will actually save his or her life when things go wrong, you're doing said student a worse disservice. So, both are important.

 

[somorris]

Seriously, a good reason to practice is the unexpected object in front of you.

Ryan, I think you hit the nail right on the head. In my opinion, the most likely scenario would be one similar to the AOPA Safety Seminar you described, or maybe during calm winds, someone landing head on at you while you are taking off or if you had to go around, both instances being ones that the pilots attention might be away from the airplane while trying to avoid hitting something. I think you guys who are instructors would serve your students well in teaching so that they will be able to handle situations like this without killing themselves. That is the real goal, not just passing the checkride.

 

[ChrisRikli]

Wow, reading through this makes me so thankful for my CFI and the quality of training I received. My CFI never failed to explain the purpose behind every maneuver, the physics behind it, and how to execute it properly.

Here's how I was trained to do power on stalls:

1. A power-on stall is meant to simulate what *could* happen on takeoff, therefore you want to simulate takeoff conditions by:
   1. Reduce power and pitch up to maintain altitude until the plane reaches 55KIAS.
   2. At 55KIAS, go full throttle.
   3. Simultaneously, rotate the plane as you would at VsubR, but rather than holding a pitch angle, keep the nose climbing.
   4. Here's a *great* tip from James, my CFI: find a cloud that is on the vertical axis of your climb and keep the nose pointed at that thing. Pretend your ailerons don't exist and use the rudder to keep the nose headed toward that could. This works *beautifully*.

I would also really encourage spin training, power on and off. For one thing, it drastically reduce that fear of a spin. Secondly, for some reason it seems to improve a pilots ability to use the rudder while approaching stall.

James told me this would be the case and sure enough, after doing about 5 spins, we did stalls and I found that I could park the plane in stall with the rudders until the bottom just flat dropped out.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a CFI, I just had an amazing one

 

[dmccormack]

Agreed, Tim. If you aren't teaching the student what is expected of him or her on the checkride, then you're doing said student a disservice.

But if you aren't teaching the student the reasons behind the practice efforts and the things that will actually save his or her life when things go wrong, you're doing said student a worse disservice. So, both are important.

I learned to fly at a Part 141 school that used the Jepp syllabus. The advantage to that approach was the link between lesson and lesson prep -- there was a flight guide that went into all the detail most of us here now seem to require.

I was motivated so would read the lesson info, practice in MSFS, and then show up ready to execute.

We didn't really discuss PTS much until after Solo. And I was fine with that.

My students know about the PTS before the discovery flight, but I don't focus on "So this is what you have to do to make the examiner pass you...."

Rather, "This is how you control the airplane and bring it back down in a usable condition..."

I haven't met one yet that was more motivated by test passing than living.

 

[TMetzinger]

Here's how I was trained to do power on stalls:

1. A power-on stall is meant to simulate what *could* happen on takeoff, therefore you want to simulate takeoff conditions by:
   1. Reduce power and pitch up to maintain altitude until the plane reaches 55KIAS.
   2. At 55KIAS, go full throttle.
   3. Simultaneously, rotate the plane as you would at VsubR, but rather than holding a pitch angle, keep the nose climbing.
   4. Here's a *great* tip from James, my CFI: find a cloud that is on the vertical axis of your climb and keep the nose pointed at that thing. Pretend your ailerons don't exist and use the rudder to keep the nose headed toward that could. This works *beautifully*.

That matches what the AFH and PTS say (assuming your Vr for that airplane is 55KIAS), and is how I taught them on my checkride (and how I'll teach my future students).

 

[gismo]

Hmm - 50 ways to stall your airplane:

Just yank the yoke back, Jack
Turn off the fan, Stan....

Pull back the stick, Dick.
Fly a steep bank, Frank.

 

[Fearless Tower]

And the other thing about this to communicate to this new imminent pilot is this: stalls can be a LOT of fun, once you know how to tame them!

They can be even more fun when you start doing them in higher performance airplanes - Stalls in the SNJ and B-25....that was some fun stuff!

 

[spiderweb]

Interesting - most of the instructors and examiners teach full power for this manuever in the 152/172/Warrior/Archer/DA20 class. The 65% power (minimum allowable in the PTS) is usually reserved for folks doing the manuever in high performance airplanes.

And it doesn't sound (from your description) that the airplane climbs the way the manuever is described in the AFH. Maybe I'm not interpreting it correctly here but it sounds a lot more slow and gentle than the manuever described in the private PTS. But I know that different evaluators have different ways of wanting to see the manuevers done, particularly the stalls.

I thought about that. I think the point is that it is a gradual, measured approach. Once you understand it, you can change things. I LOVE power-ons in the Bonanza (F33). You feel like a fighter pilot pointed up at the sky!

 

[spiderweb]

Hmm - 50 ways to stall your airplane:

Just yank the yoke back, Jack
Turn off the fan, Stan....

AWESOME!

 

[Henning]

1. 1. Here's a *great* tip from James, my CFI: find a cloud that is on the vertical axis of your climb and keep the nose pointed at that thing. Pretend your ailerons don't exist and use the rudder to keep the nose headed toward that could. This works *beautifully*.

You obviously didn't train in SoCal or any of the desert southwest....

 

[Doggtyred]

The topic I think speaks for itself, but here's a bit more info:

I'm on my 2nd CFI, well advanced in the curriculum. I'm not comfortable with power-on stalls. My 1st CFI only served to scare the crap out of me on all stalls, I had no understanding of even why do them...how stupid is this, who would do this on purpose, keep the darned airspeed up and the AoA down and you don't stall, seems simple, why do we keep doing this crap every friggin flight, are you wasting my money...[rant off]

I am responding without having read the entire thread.. forgive me if my post is redundant.

Why do we do stalls? Well.. thats what we do when we land.. and what we try NOT to do when we take off..

Think of a power off stall (or, more appropriately termed as an "approach stall") as a landing.. when you come in to land, your power is off, and you are holding off the ground, pulling back gradually until the plane stalls.. but since you are only a foot or so off the ground, it mushes onto the landing surface instead of mushing then breaking and descending in a stall.

A good scenario to wrap this around is about making a power off approach into a field and then having to go around in the flare without ever touching the ground (fouled runway, etc..).. (or coming up short on a power off approach).... doing a stall allows you to get experience with mushy controls and arresting descent without descending into an obstruction, plane, ditch, etc.

Thats also why during your recovery you try not to descend through your target altitude, because that would represent "hitting the ground"...


Now.. power on stalls.. with full throttle power and heavy right rudder, can give you one heck of an unsettling sight picture and deck angle if you aren't accustomed to it. Why the heck would we do such a thing?

Well.. if you botch a short field/max performance takeoff and over-rotate you could experience a power on stall, and the goal is to recognize and recover without hitting the trees or sinking back to the ground in an attitude not conducive to landing. Power on stalls can be termed "departure stalls" as one common place to experience them is on a departure profile at low airspeed.

Thats why you try very very hard to not lose altitude during the recovery, and you get practice handling the plane with mushy controls, pi$$ poor forward view, AND torque/P-factor from the maxed out powerplant.

You will need to demonstrate competence in both approach and departure stalls to get your license, because that competence is what keeps you alive and hopefully from making a big mistake when you have the misfortune of a small mistake or small surprise on takeoff or landing.

You are practicing these maneuvers at altitude so that sinking through the goal/minimum altitude isn't complicated by bent metal and medical bills.

You should expect to do power on and power off stalls, slow flight and steep turns for EVERY FAA checkride and rental check-out flight you ever do in your flying career... The higher your license, the tighter the tolerances or higher the bar when performing those maneuvers.

Here is an example of what a stall and spin too close to the ground to recover look like....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9SjKT-oWM&feature=related

and another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LSO_vs_F7U_Cutlass.jpg

Both are from carrier flight decks, but much of the physics (minus the p-factor) are the same as what a primary trainer would encounter.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You should expect to do power on and power off stalls, slow flight and steep turns for EVERY FAA checkride and rental check-out flight you ever do in your flying career... The higher your license, the tighter the tolerances or higher the bar when performing those maneuvers.

Amazingly (and arguably criminally), my original CFI never taught or had me do power on stalls and my DPE for my private pilot checkride didn't have me demonstrate one either. First time I ever did a power on was for a checkout in a 172 after I got my license (did all my training in a warrior). That was a little intimidating, but I've been doing them ever since.

 

[nosehair]

Amazingly (and arguably criminally), my original CFI never taught or had me do power on stalls and my DPE for my private pilot checkride didn't have me demonstrate one either.

I would argue along with you on the criminally. I get very upset about our lack of training and checking. Especially the checking, because the training always is towards the checking. I believe such action is criminally negligent and is the primary reason for most accidents. Very very few aircraft accidents happen because a wing falls off.

 

[poadeleted20]

I would argue along with you on the criminally. I get very upset about our lack of training and checking. Especially the checking, because the training always is towards the checking. I believe such action is criminally negligent and is the primary reason for most accidents. Very very few aircraft accidents happen because a wing falls off.

I don't believe that failing to teach a required maneuver rises to the level of "criminal negligence" (which requires a "reckless" act, such as driving while intoxicated, the lethal consequences of which, such injuring or killing someone as a result of driving while intoxicated, are reasonably foreseeable). However, signing the practical test endorsement without having done so is most certainly a violation of 14 CFR 61.59.

 

[nosehair]

I don't believe that failing to teach a required maneuver rises to the level of "criminal negligence" (which requires a "reckless" act, such as driving while intoxicated, the lethal consequences of which, such injuring or killing someone as a result of driving while intoxicated, are reasonably foreseeable). However, signing the practical test endorsement without having done so is most certainly a violation of 14 CFR 61.59.

As well as signing a student certificate would violate 61.87,...and I will let your opinion that the "teacher" isn't criminally liable rest for the moment, and focus more on the "evaluator".
In the quoted case, the examiner did not see a power-on stall. Most students I talk to do not have to do a turning stall either.
Also, most examiners will accept the horn, or an airspeed close to stall, and do not like to do full stalls. Slow flight is accepted as flying a certain speed or the horn, rather than the specific description in the PTS.

Accidents are happening as a result of this behavior.

 

[poadeleted20]

In the quoted case, the examiner did not see a power-on stall. Most students I talk to do not have to do a turning stall either.

Unlike the Power-On Stall task, which is required, there is no requirement that a stall be performed in a turn.

Maintains a specified heading, ±10°, in straight flight; maintains a

specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°, ±10°, in turning flight, while inducing the stall.

The examiner is free to chose any bank angle up to 20 degrees, but there is no minimum bank angle specified, so zero bank appears acceptable, especially if the specified angle of bank is less than 10 degrees (zero being within 10 degrees of anything less than 10 degrees).

Also, most examiners will accept the horn, or an airspeed close to stall, and do not like to do full stalls.

Since the horn generally sounds 5-10 knots above the actual aerodynamic stall, that simply doesn't meet the PTS requirement even if some examiner accepts it. OTOH, since a "stall" occurs when the AoA at which CLmax occurs is passed, but before the sharp break in pitch which occurs when CL drops off nearly vertically on the AoA/CL chart, the stall occurs rather sooner than many people think, and there is no PTS requirement to take it past the true "stall" AoA.

Slow flight is accepted as flying a certain speed or the horn, rather than the specific description in the PTS.

While some examiners may accept less than the PTS requirement for "an airspeed at which any further increase in angle of attack, increase in load factor, or reduction in power, would result in an immediate stall," that doesn't mean the requirement doesn't exist anymore than the aforementioned case of no power-on stalls making that correct, either. However, if you've got a solid horn blaring steadily (not the softer initial sound, especially if just "nibbling" at it), you're well within the PP PTS standard of +10/-0 knots of Vmca.
​

 

[Henning]

As well as signing a student certificate would violate 61.87,...and I will let your opinion that the "teacher" isn't criminally liable rest for the moment, and focus more on the "evaluator".
In the quoted case, the examiner did not see a power-on stall. Most students I talk to do not have to do a turning stall either.
Also, most examiners will accept the horn, or an airspeed close to stall, and do not like to do full stalls. Slow flight is accepted as flying a certain speed or the horn, rather than the specific description in the PTS.

Accidents are happening as a result of this behavior.

Never seen that...

 

[nosehair]

Unlike the Power-On Stall task, which is required, there is no requirement that a stall be performed in a turn.

The examiner is free to chose any bank angle up to 20 degrees, but there is no minimum bank angle specified, so zero bank appears acceptable, especially if the specified angle of bank is less than 10 degrees (zero being within 10 degrees of anything less than 10 degrees).
​

OK, I'm going to take that you are serious in this statement, since I have not seen making sarcastic statements. But i'm honestly very surprised that you would take this sort of defense in poor training and checking.

In the PTS, you may notice that each TASK references at least one FAA publication from which that TASK is evaluating. In the stall TASKs, 8083-3, the Airplane Flying Handbook outlines the FAA required training for the TASK.

The instructor certifies that he has trained in accordance with that Handbook. The Handbook describes, in the first paragraph about power-on stall training, that the purpose of this training is to become familiar with stall characteristics at Take-Off (full throttle) and Departure (climb power) configurations in climbs and climbing turns.

Seems reasonable that we are teaching stalls from straight ahead and in turns.

In practice, a pilot who is accidentally stalling on take-off, is probably also losing yaw control, so the stall usually becomes a left turning stall, ...into a spin entry.

Knowing this, we instructors are legally responsible to teach it, and examiners are legally responsible to check it.

I also support the examiner's authority to decide what to check, since I know he cannot check everything. He is supposed to be sampling, within the guidelines of the PTS, while the instructor certifies that the pilot applicant has been trained in everything in the TASK references.

BUT..in my honest observations over the years, many examiners do not test turning stalls at all, or slow flight and other stalls to a level of competency that inspires the training indicated in the AFH.

That is the reason so many of today's instructors are afraid f stalls and spins. ...EVEN tho Instructional Proficiency is supposed to be achieved before attaining the CFI.

When persons like yourself, long-time instructors, quote the PTS in such legal terms so as to circumvent the training and proficiency that is intended, and the public deserves,...I am afraid that the new pilot will develop the illusion that "PTS minimums" are sufficient training.

You don't mean to say that, do you?

 

[dmccormack]

When persons like yourself, long-time instructors, quote the PTS in such legal terms so as to circumvent the training and proficiency that is intended, and the public deserves,...I am afraid that the new pilot will develop the illusion that "PTS minimums" are sufficient training.

You don't mean to say that, do you?

Again: "test prep" <> "Pilot training."

 

[poadeleted20]

OK, I'm going to take that you are serious in this statement, since I have not seen making sarcastic statements. But i'm honestly very surprised that you would take this sort of defense in poor training and checking.

No sarcasm at all, just covering the actual PTS requirement whether I agree with its wisdom or not, which I don't. I do indeed agree with you that an instructor would be both irresponsible and remiss in his/her legal requirements not to train someone in turning stalls at everything up to 20 degrees of bank (since the PTS allows for that to be tested). However, since the PTS doesn't require any minimum bank angle for that Task, I cannot fault an examiner who doesn't require it.

Again: "test prep" <> "Pilot training."

I think I would rather say in the context of the PTS that just because something is permissible (as opposed to "required") on a practical test doesn't mean it must be done by the DPE (otherwise it would be "required" and if the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum), but everything permissible must be trained by the CFI.

 

[nosehair]

No sarcasm at all, just covering the actual PTS requirement whether I agree with its wisdom or not, which I don't. I do indeed agree with you that an instructor would be both irresponsible and remiss in his/her legal requirements not to train someone in turning stalls at everything up to 20 degrees of bank (since the PTS allows for that to be tested). However, since the PTS doesn't require any minimum bank angle for that Task, I cannot fault an examiner who doesn't require it.

Ok, thanks for responding. I am clearer on your thought process.
I do believe the requirement to test at 20 degree bank angles exists, since it is written in the PTS as "maintains heading in straight flight; (semi-colon) maintains specified bank angle in turning flight."

How can a stall from "turning flight, with a specified bank angle" be interpreted as zero bank? except as a skid?

You say you don't agree with it's wisdom, but the PTS doesn't have wisdom: you do. You, me, and the examiner are supposed to act as teachers and leaders in the educational business.

The PTS is a guide, not a mandate. The references indicated in each TASK is used as the base information from which to reference discussions of training, along with the PTS.

My point here is that I see way too many lawyer-speak references to the PTS only, as if that were the only Bible of training, without the references to the training materiel.

 

[Jaybird180]

To quote a famous Vulcan, "Fascinating."

 

[poadeleted20]

I do believe the requirement to test at 20 degree bank angles exists, since it is written in the PTS as "maintains heading in straight flight; (semi-colon) maintains specified bank angle in turning flight."

Since the PTS says "maintains a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20°," rather than maintains an angle of bank of 20°," I must disagree as to a requirement for any specific bank angle other than the one given by the DPE, which must not be more than 20° but has no lower limit.

The PTS is a guide, not a mandate.

Actually, it is a mandate -- see the imperative word "shall" in the PTS:

FAA inspectors and designated pilot examiners shall conduct
practical tests in compliance with these standards.

I've been flying long enough to remember when they were the Practical Test Guides, and there was absolute anarchy with regard to the things on which one would be tested, and the standards to which one would be held. The FAA decided several decades ago that this was an unacceptable situation, and turned the Guides into Standards to which examiners are required to adhere.

For example, on this Task, if an examiner were to specify a 30° bank angle, the applicant who failed that Task would have grounds for a successful challenge of the bust, and the DPE's designation would be in jeopardy. OTOH, since it says "specified angle of bank," with no limit other than 20° max, if the examiner specified 20° of bank, an applicant who failed would no basis to argue that the specified angle of bank was unfair in any way, shape, or form, which is why the instructor involved better make darn sure the applicant has been trained on and can successfully perform that stall at any bank angle up to 20° before signing the practical test endorsement.

Likewise, if the examiner demanded 20° but the applicant only got to 15°, the examiner could not fail the applicant on that basis because the PTS says the tolerance is +/- 10°, and 15° is within 5° of 20°.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

To quote a famous Vulcan, "Fascinating."

I hear ya, dude.

 

[nosehair]

For example, on this Task, if an examiner were to specify a 30° bank angle, the applicant who failed that Task would have grounds for a successful challenge of the bust, and the DPE's designation would be in jeopardy. OTOH, since it says "specified angle of bank," with no limit other than 20° max, if the examiner specified 20° of bank, an applicant who failed would no basis to argue that the specified angle of bank was unfair in any way, shape, or form, which is why the instructor involved better make darn sure the applicant has been trained on and can successfully perform that stall at any bank angle up to 20° before signing the practical test endorsement.

Likewise, if the examiner demanded 20° but the applicant only got to 15°, the examiner could not fail the applicant on that basis because the PTS says the tolerance is +/- 10°, and 15° is within 5° of 20°.

Not arguing with any of that ~ however, that is not what you have alluded to. You have been saying the examiner is not required to do any turning stalls.

 

[nosehair]

Likewise, if the examiner demanded 20° but the applicant only got to 15°, the examiner could not fail the applicant on that basis because the PTS says the tolerance is +/- 10°, and 15° is within 5° of 20°.

Also, the examiner wouldn't want to be failing an applicant based on whether he got exactly to 20 degrees; he would be more interested in seeing the coordination, overall execution, timely control input, situational awareness, control of the airplane into, through, and out of the stall while demonstrating mastery. Those skills are demonstrated whether at 15 or 20 degrees.

 

[TMetzinger]

Not arguing with any of that ~ however, that is not what you have alluded to. You have been saying the examiner is not required to do any turning stalls.

He's not.

He may require the applicant to do them in straight or turning flight, and/or specify a bank angle not to exceed 20 degrees if done in turning flight.

The same standards apply on the CFI ride and we did the power on stall in straight flight, and the power off stall the same way.

Although my instructors taught me stalls in turns, I NEVER had to demonstrate one on any checkride to date.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Also, the examiner wouldn't want to be failing an applicant based on whether he got exactly to 20 degrees; he would be more interested in seeing the coordination, overall execution, timely control input, situational awareness, control of the airplane into, through, and out of the stall while demonstrating mastery. Those skills are demonstrated whether at 15 or 20 degrees.

Bingo!

 

[nosehair]

He's not.

He may require the applicant to do them in straight or turning flight, and/or specify a bank angle not to exceed 20 degrees if done in turning flight.

The same standards apply on the CFI ride and we did the power on stall in straight flight, and the power off stall the same way.

Although my instructors taught me stalls in turns, I NEVER had to demonstrate one on any checkride to date.

OK, Tim, you never had to do one on a checkride, but your instructor taught them, and i think you would learn them anyway.
But, there are thousands of pilots flying around who have not ever become proficient in turning stalls, and such, because the instructor, the school, everybody knew the examiner would not do them, and take other short cuts to undermine the safety and proficiency of our system.

That's who I'm talking about.

I'm saying we, the team, the FAA, the CFI's, and the Examiners, have a responsibility to the public to teach safe pilots, and stalls from a full throttle turning, often uncoordinated condition are frequent causes of loss of control.

We have to teach it, and the examiner has to check it.

I'm not saying he has to check turning stalls on each flight; I can't because of the way you guys have decided to read the PTS, and I won't expend the energy to argue that point, but I will argue that it is the examiners responsibility to ensure the training has occurred, and that it would be reasonable to expect that an examiner would test turning stalls on some occasions.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm not saying he has to check turning stalls on each flight; I can't because of the way you guys have decided to read the PTS, and I won't expend the energy to argue that point, but I will argue that it is the examiners responsibility to ensure the training has occurred, and that it would be reasonable to expect that an examiner would test turning stalls on some occasions.

Well...

The ultimate check on pilot proficiency is accidents -- proficient pilots have fewer.

 

[TMetzinger]

OK, Tim, you never had to do one on a checkride, but your instructor taught them, and i think you would learn them anyway. We have to teach it, and the examiner has to check it.

I'm not saying he has to check turning stalls on each flight; I can't because of the way you guys have decided to read the PTS, and I won't expend the energy to argue that point, but I will argue that it is the examiners responsibility to ensure the training has occurred, and that it would be reasonable to expect that an examiner would test turning stalls on some occasions.

I'm in full agreement that the instructor has the duty to teach and evaluate turning stalls and the candidate has the duty to be proficient at them.

I even agree that "... it would be reasonable to expect that an examiner would test turning stalls on some occasions...". But that's different than saying they're required to do so.

 

[poadeleted20]

We have to teach it, and the examiner has to check it.

I'm not saying he has to check turning stalls on each flight; I can't because of the way you guys have decided to read the PTS, and I won't expend the energy to argue that point, but I will argue that it is the examiners responsibility to ensure the training has occurred, and that it would be reasonable to expect that an examiner would test turning stalls on some occasions.

Change "has" to "should" in the bolded section, and we're in lock-step agreement.