Part of the problem, I think, is some of the DPE's out there. Particularly where schools have examiners 'on staff'. The CFI's are simply teaching to a particular examiner's standard. If the examiner wants to see it a certain way, that's how the CFI is going to teach the student.
Right -- required maneuver. And you are not required by the PTS to perform a power-on stall which exceeds 30 degrees of pitch before stalling.
It says "intentional maneuver," not unintentional excursion. And while the regulation says "regulations," the PTS provides the specific guidance on compliance with the regulations in this regard. So, for example, intentionally doing 70-degree steep turns does not fall within the exception, nor does a 90-degree bank "Lazy 8," nor does a power-on stall where you exceed 30 degrees of pitch before the stall.
You are if you allow it to happen and don't stop it immediately if it happens unintentionally.
It may be that, but it's not what the regs say. If you have further doubts on this, I suggest contacting your local FSDO for more official guidance than I can provide.
Thank you. If you read the accident reports, you'll see most takeoff/departure stall accidents with light singles occur in situations where the full throttle stall occurs at a much lower pitch attitude than would be experienced in most training, i.e., high DA and full gross load versus low DA and several hundred pounds below max gross. I have no doubt that many of those accident pilots were stunned when the plane stalled at a pitch attitude at which they usually were nowhere near stalling AoA. Another example of the importance of teaching that stalls can occur at any attitude/speed, and why having an AoA gauge would be such a good thing in light airplanes.
Sooooo, what do you suggest doing to counter this?
See post #22 above.
Thanks Cap'n!
My CFI taught slow flight with hearing the stall horn the entire time. As far as he was concerned, if you didn't hear at least a little whine from the horn then you weren't really slow. In the STOL equipped 172 I trained in, that was pretty freaking slow!
Flight review maneuvers are up to the instructor conducting the review, and the maneuvers to be performed and the standards to which they will be performed should be discussed by the instructor before the flight. Generally speaking, while it's nice for trainees to know what's in the PTS, the PTS is primarily for the instructor and examiner. If the instructor does his/her job right, there will be no need for the trainee to worry about the specifics in it.
I would be careful with this interpretation.
Thanks!
(Maybe this piece of knowledge will enable me to get off the short bus!).
Ok, now I think it's safe to pull out the <whack Henning> smilie.
Thanks!
(Maybe this piece of knowledge will enable me to get off the short bus!).
..
However, the regulation only references the maneuvers required for certification.
That's your opinion, not the PTS or the regulations.
Only if one accepts the idea that 91.307(d) means something other than what it actually says.
Ron's answer is correct for Geoffrey's question about a Flight Review. If, however, you are considering using Wings phases in lieu of a Flight Review, then yes, you will need to know this, as those rides are supposed to be judged against the PTS, not an instructor's arbitrary interpretation of "satisfactory."
No, I can't. I really don't know of any maneuver other than spins which requires exceeding the 30 pitch/60 bank limits.
I don't know of too many propeller-driven aircraft which have enough thrust for that to be true -- maybe a few of the unlimited aerobatic types. Certainly not anything anyone is using for PP or CP training.
...as long as you're wearing a parachute, I guess. Tell you what -- when you get your CFI, you do just that with your trainees. I'll stick to teaching them what the book requires and what I think is likely to keep them from getting hurt and taking them up into some yahoo stalling maneuver where you're almost on your back before the plane stalls isn't on my list of things "likely to keep them from getting hurt."
Why?
I'm saying how the training should be conducted depends on the aircraft, although the real answer is that full power stalls are not taught because nobody does power-on stalls at sea level, which is the only altitude at which full power can be achieved in non-turbocharged aircraft.
If you're not going to read the thread above, there's no hope you'll read what I write now. : bye:
and I quoted 91.307 which clearly states that as not true.
