Why stall it?

dmspilot said:
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, I will say that a full-stall "style" of landing (which I will decline to participate in the actually-stalled-or-not debate) will result in the nose blocking the view of the runway in a number of airplanes, such as the C150/152. This manner of landing does not seem congruent with attempting to prevent a loss-of-directional-control type of landing accident. Disagreement is welcome.
Click to expand...

Then I disagree!

I learned from the beginning, and have gone on to teach, to look out to the left side as the nose came up.

First, in my opinion it's exceedingly difficult to judge height when looking at the far end of the runway, though some promote it and may be able to use peripheral vision to judge height. Does not work for me, however.

Second, it prepares a pilot to transition to myriad planes with poor or nonexistent view over the nose in the landing attitude. It prepared me for teaching from the rear of Citabrias, though in that tandem plane I came to prefer the view to the right - probably because as a CFI I was used to sitting right seat most of the time.

I've posted this link before, but it's a decent summary of my position - with photos!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yj9oez6gk40jk36/Wheretolook.pdf?dl=0
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, I will say that a full-stall "style" of landing (which I will decline to participate in the actually-stalled-or-not debate) will result in the nose blocking the view of the runway in a number of airplanes, such as the C150/152. This manner of landing does not seem congruent with attempting to prevent a loss-of-directional-control type of landing accident. Disagreement is welcome.
Click to expand...

Don't bother trying to get a checkout in a Cessna 180 or 185 if you always have to have a clear view over the nose. Or some other taildraggers. The 150 has way more viz over the nose than the big taildraggers or some biplanes.
 
It seems like the lines of division have been drawn in this discussion, and I appreciate the different views offered here. That's what I was looking for in the initial post. But I've noticed the fly it until it stalls camp doesn't seem to think there is any other way without inviting catastrophe and destruction.

It needs to be noted that there is a difference in arguing against another perspective, and arguing against an abuse of that perspective. The discussion I see here assumes poor airmanship first and begins the argument there . I haven't seen others force that assumption back the other way. In essence, you are arguing what can go wrong if you really mess it up. There's a place for that but it shouldn't detract from the real argument where both sides operate on the same assumptions. I don't doubt that if you come in 20kts fast you can really mess up your landing. But I also know that if you stop flying 20ft off the ground, it won't be any better.
 
dmspilot said:
In the interest of playing devil's advocate, I will say that a full-stall "style" of landing (which I will decline to participate in the actually-stalled-or-not debate) will result in the nose blocking the view of the runway in a number of airplanes, such as the C150/152. This manner of landing does not seem congruent with attempting to prevent a loss-of-directional-control type of landing accident. Disagreement is welcome.
Click to expand...

I see no reason directional control can't be maintained without looking straight forward.

Ever done a one wheel takeoff in a Cessna? Ever HAD to do a one wheel takeoff? (just an example... Can't see crap straight ahead but you can certainly keep it straight...)
 
Dan Thomas said:
Don't bother trying to get a checkout in a Cessna 180 or 185 if you always have to have a clear view over the nose. Or some other taildraggers. The 150 has way more viz over the nose than the big taildraggers or some biplanes.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about how to teach student pilots, not myself, but thank you for the free assessment of my flying skills. :rolleyes:

My point was that students seem to have enough trouble dealing with crosswinds when they can see the runway, let alone when they can't see it.

Additionally, if you think the 150 has any visibility over the nose at all in a full-stall style of landing, perhaps you haven't done one or have forgotten what it looks like.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
I see no reason directional control can't be maintained without looking straight forward.

Ever done a one wheel takeoff in a Cessna? Ever HAD to do a one wheel takeoff? (just an example... Can't see crap straight ahead but you can certainly keep it straight...)
Click to expand...

Would you be comfortable soloing a student in a light to moderate crosswind who has been taught to land with the nose blocking the view of the runway?
 
dmspilot said:
Would you be comfortable soloing a student in a light to moderate crosswind who has been taught to land with the nose blocking the view of the runway?
Click to expand...

Yes. The "view" that is blocked is no concern since that's not where they would be looking at that point in their training.

My goal is to give them skills applicable to a wide variety of aircraft, not just the one they're in.
 
FastEddieB said:
Yes. The "view" that is blocked is no concern since that's not where they would be looking at that point in their training.

My goal is to give them skills applicable to a wide variety of aircraft, not just the one they're in.
Click to expand...

I see your point.

Personally, the way I see many pilots land (e.g. when I do checkouts or flight reviews), any landing in which the nosewheel is well clear of the runway at touchdown would be an improvement, even if the stall warning horn is not even on.
 
Pilots, in general, are given pretty wide latitude when it comes to technique.

Flight instructors, on the other hand, have to know what the "book" says, and not stray too far from it if he or she wants their students to pass checkrides. Over time, I've come to believe that, in general, things have made their way into "the book" for good reason, and if everyone flew to that standard there would be far fewer accidents.

That said, here's what the FAA says about where to look on landing, from the Airplane Flying Handbook:

7954777752_a63a8b345a.jpg
 
FastEddieB said:
Pilots, in general, are given pretty wide latitude when it comes to technique.

Flight instructors, on the other hand, have to know what the "book" says, and not stray too far from it if he or she wants their students to pass checkrides.
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't explain myself very well. My observations noted above include pilots who recently passed checkrides, or students who were recently soloed by other instructors. According to what I've seen there are significant numbers instructors letting their students touch down very flat and DPEs passing these students as well. I myself was actually admonished by a DPE on my multiengine checkride for having the stall horn go off. He told me to fly it onto the runway. (The PTS is the same -- "touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (AMEL)."
 
I got my multi in a doggy Apache at New Tamiami Airport.

On my first landing I held it off and held it off and got a nice slow landing with the nose in the air and the stall horn blaring. I was quite pleased, but the instructor yelled, "Damnit! You can't land this thing like a 150!"

I went on to land it like he wanted - just kinda flying it on - but I've later confirmed that one can pretty much land an Apache, and most small GA aircraft, like a 150.

But to address a straw man argued against upthread, no one has put forth that every landing has to aim for a "full stall", nor every aircraft, all the time. Kind of silly to suggest that, since some of the situations where that would not be appropriate have, in fact, been pointed out.
 
FastEddieB said:
I went on to land it like he wanted - just kinda flying it on
Click to expand...

So how did you pass your checkride if you're supposed to land "at approximate stalling speed"? The verbiage is identical to the single-engine PTS.
 
dmspilot said:
Additionally, if you think the 150 has any visibility over the nose at all in a full-stall style of landing, perhaps you haven't done one or have forgotten what it looks like.
Click to expand...

Used to instruct in a variety of airplanes, including the 150 and 172 and 180 and 182 and Citabria and Champ and Super Cub. Did "full stall" landings where the tail of the trike was barely off the surface. In soft-field takeoffs one had to be careful that the tail didn't hit the runway. The airplane would lift off in that so-called "full stall" attitude.
 
Last edited:
Only speaking for a light SE trike....

What instructor would ever teach " fly it onto the runway"?

Seems just not correct.
 
Kritchlow said:
Only speaking for a light SE trike....

What instructor would ever teach " fly it onto the runway"?

Seems just not correct.
Click to expand...

I would guess most people do initially, at least. There is a good bit of room in most small SE airplanes between stall speed and touching down nose wheel first or porpoising. For PP instruction in a trainer, I see no need to start at one end of the spectrum. When the conditions are right and they've developed a feel for the airplane, having them hold off a little more isn't that hard to teach.
 
Cooter143 said:
I would guess most people do initially, at least. There is a good bit of room in most small SE airplanes between stall speed and touching down nose wheel first or porpoising. For PP instruction in a trainer, I see no need to start at one end of the spectrum. When the conditions are right and they've developed a feel for the airplane, having them hold off a little more isn't that hard to teach.
Click to expand...
When I was an active instructor (many moons ago) I always taught one of the reasons we do MCA and stalls is to prepare us for landings down the road.
I never taught landings in early lessons. Basically so the students wouldn't focus on landings and ask questions about them. I wanted them to be focused on stalls, MCA, steep turns... You get the idea. Once that was mastered I taught landings, and HARDCORE. But, I could equate... "Remember MCA into a stall". It made teaching landings much more productive, at least for me.
 
Kritchlow said:
When I was an active instructor (many moons ago) I always taught one of the reasons we do MCA and stalls is to prepare us for landings down the road.
I could equate... "Remember MCA into a stall". It made teaching landings much more productive, at least for me.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, I'll keep that in mind.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Don't bother trying to get a checkout in a Cessna 180 or 185 if you always have to have a clear view over the nose. Or some other taildraggers. The 150 has way more viz over the nose than the big taildraggers or some biplanes.
Click to expand...

Even a 182. If you can see the runway with a correct power off landing at full flaps, you're landing flat.

While it's possible to fly onto the runway smoothly above the stall warning, you're vulnerable to being lifted off the runway, you need more brakes 'cause you can't use aerodynamic drag, and you will almost certainly wheelbarrow if you are as fast as 20 knots over.

Some of the posters in this thread must always land on 6000 foot runways.
 
MAKG1 said:
Even a 182. If you can see the runway with a correct power off landing at full flaps, you're landing flat.
Click to expand...

Had a chance to fly a 182 a couple days ago, and from the right seat I definitely was looking off to the right as the nose came up to judge height.

As an aside, after flying not much other than my Sky Arrow for the last several years, DAMN that 182 took a lot of pull to get that nose way up!
 
LongRoadBob said:
Thanks! So that means "slow flying" or X number of knots over stall speed, or something else?
Click to expand...
In a practical sense, it means flying with the stall horn sounding, but not stalled. Literally, it means the slowest speed you can fly without it stalling or otherwise losing control (there is a difference for a twin).
 
MAKG1 said:
Even a 182. If you can see the runway with a correct power off landing at full flaps, you're landing flat.

While it's possible to fly onto the runway smoothly above the stall warning, you're vulnerable to being lifted off the runway, you need more brakes 'cause you can't use aerodynamic drag, and you will almost certainly wheelbarrow if you are as fast as 20 knots over.

Some of the posters in this thread must always land on 6000 foot runways.
Click to expand...
I agree with the runway length they seem to be familiar with , or longer. I also don't think many have much if any tail wheel time or they would not be making absurd statements like " stalling six feet above the runway, losing control, etc. most probably Learned in a 150-152 or a 172 , never stalled, spun or recovered from unusual attitudes. At least it sounds that way.
 
MAKG1 said:
In a practical sense, it means flying with the stall horn sounding, but not stalled.
Click to expand...
Presumes you have a stall horn, but even then it's a bit inaccurate.
Literally, it means the slowest speed you can fly without it stalling or otherwise losing control (there is a difference for a twin).
Click to expand...
That's better... here's what the FAA says:

This maneuver demonstrates the flight characteristics and degree of controllability of the airplane at its minimum flying speed. By definition, the term “flight at minimum controllable airspeed” means a speed at which any further increase in angle of attack or load factor, or reduction in power will cause an immediate stall. Instruction in flight at minimum controllable airspeed should be introduced at reduced power settings, with the airspeed sufficiently above the stall to permit maneuvering, but close enough to the stall to sense the characteristics of flight at very low airspeed—which are sloppy controls, ragged response to control inputs, and difficulty maintaining altitude. Maneuvering at minimum controllable airspeed should be performed using both instrument indications and outside visual reference. It is important that pilots form the habit of frequent reference to the flight instruments, especially the airspeed indicator, while flying at very low airspeeds. However, a “feel” for the airplane at very low airspeeds must be developed to avoid inadvertent stalls and to operate the airplane with precision.
​
Neither MCA nor stalled is where you want to be at landing.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I agree with the runway length they seem to be familiar with , or longer. I also don't think many have much if any tail wheel time or they would not be making absurd statements like " stalling six feet above the runway, losing control, etc. most probably Learned in a 150-152 or a 172 , never stalled, spun or recovered from unusual attitudes. At least it sounds that way.
Click to expand...

Who is "they"? Maybe you could be more specific about who is making absurd comments and actually respond to them.
 
MAKG1 said:
Some of the posters in this thread must always land on 6000 foot runways.
Click to expand...

These are the folks that go out to some little fly-in or on a $100 hamburger run and try to land at that little 2500-foot grass strip and run right off the end or bust the nosewheel or something. They are used to landing like that, have been since they started flying because the instructor taught it that way. Seems that some instructors don't understand the physics of this stuff or are afraid of stalling or something.

There are Seven Learning Factors. One of the first is Primacy, which says that something must be taught right the first time. First impressions are the strongest, and practicing what you have been shown reinforces it to the point that it is very difficult to change it. If one is shown a flat landing on the first lesson, he'll think that's the way it's done.

Instructors need to know this stuff. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp4818-parti-factors-5436.htm
 
I learned at high density altitude airports and live on a short field. There's a difference between learning a proper minimum energy landing and the absolute inane drivel espoused by some. You are NOT landing in full-stall (even if you tried) and MCA is NOT a proper flight regime to be using in the landing flare. While the general procedures are correct, the explanation of what is going on is 9 times out of 10 complete bunk.

While a lot of the FAA ideas of aerodymanics is wanting, the FAA party line on landing is pretty good. I'd recommend you follow the AFH.

The FOI on the other hand is such complete bull, that they excuse those with proper education credentials from having to take it lest they have to clean up tons of vomit from the testing chambers.
 
flyingron said:
While a lot of the FAA ideas of aerodymanics is wanting, the FAA party line on landing is pretty good. I'd recommend you follow the AFH...There's a difference between learning a proper minimum energy landing and the absolute inane drivel espoused by some. You are NOT landing in full-stall (even if you tried) and MCA is NOT a proper flight regime to be using in the landing flare...While a lot of the FAA ideas of aerodymanics is wanting, the FAA party line on landing is pretty good. I'd recommend you follow the AFH.
Click to expand...

Not arguing for the sake of arguing, but there's some self-contradiction in the above.

This is direct from the AFH, page 8-6:

TOUCHDOWN

The touchdown is the gentle settling of the airplane onto the landing surface. The roundout and touchdown should be made with the engine idling, and the airplane at minimum controllable airspeed, so that the airplane will touch down on the main gear at approximately stalling speed. As the airplane settles, the proper landing attitude is attained by application of whatever back-elevator pressure is necessary.

Bolded mine, but surely you can see how parts of your post go against the FAA recommendations while at the same time praising them
 
The threads are more beneficial if people actually interact with other people. It's pretty rude to charge others with incompetence and ridicule other opinions without actually engaging any particular point raised.
 
FastEddieB said:
Cooter,

I hope that was not in response to my last post.
Click to expand...

No, I must have been typing at the same time. Your post is beneficial as it helps highlight what is being discussed and refine the discussion. I happen to agree with most of what flyingron has posted. Even what you quoted above. But, blanket statements can get you in trouble and it needs to be qualified.
 
"Stalling speed" is not "stalled". Speed doesn't determine stall. MCA is arguable.
 
flyingron said:
"Stalling speed" is not "stalled".
Click to expand...

Fine, if a little pedantic.

Speed doesn't determine stall.
Click to expand...

Maybe not by itself, but the very term "stall speed" kinda indicates it does, at least in large part.

MCA is arguable.
Click to expand...

Again, fine. But what's not arguable is the FAA's stated position.

"The roundout and touchdown should be made...at minimum controllable airspeed."

Argue If you like, but I'm good with using the language the FAA uses when I'm teaching.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Whew! And thanks.

I've had so many of my posts, here and elsewhere, taken the wrong way I guess I'm a little paranoid!
Click to expand...

I don't get any "ready room" time or hanging around the airport time anymore so I enjoy the discussions here as long as they don't get personal. Once we start comparing resumes the discussion is pretty much over in my book and if I can't make my point without referring to my credentials, then I'm not communicating very well. But the back and forth often helps me to understand both sides, and may introduce me to a new idea every now and then.

I appreciate your posts, and I like seeing the references. You saved me some time cause I was about to go get out the AFH. That's one of the reasons I follow POA.
 
FastEddieB said:
Fine, if a little pedantic.



Maybe not by itself, but the very term "stall speed" kinda indicates it does, at least in large part.



Again, fine. But what's not arguable is the FAA's stated position.

"The roundout and touchdown should be made...at minimum controllable airspeed."

Argue If you like, but I'm good with using the language the FAA uses when I'm teaching.
Click to expand...
I would just say the language isn't always neat and clean, communicating pure methods. It is conceptual, as MCA is not perfectly definable by an airspeed or number. It is communicating the idea that you are slowing the aircraft, depleting excess speed which is what is occurring in the flare. Certainly you don't want them below MCA until touchdown is imminent, so it would actually only be at a certain time in the flare that you would decel to MCA. In many circumstances you won't even do that, but the process would be very similar.
 
We've gone from a hypothetical discussion on whether a "full" stall is the correct way to teach someone how land or whether it can be "a couple knots" above stall ... to criticizing other pilots for landing 20 knots too fast and wheelbarrowing and running off the ends of the runways. It makes me wonder why I bother participating in a discussion when so many feel the need to attack straw men and insult others.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top