Weasil
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Posts
- 752
Avbug,
Thanks for your comments. You missed my point however. Not only was I saying it IS appropriate to teach full stalls it is also required by regulation. And no I am NOT teaching recoveries wrong. It is my job to hand out pilot certificates, so part of my job is to determine what other instructors are doing wrong, and help change that!
Clearly 100 feet wasn't enough altitude for this particular student to recover in - does that mean he never demonstrated good stall recovery at altitude in a controlled situation - probably not. So what else then does an instructor need to do? Maybe there's nothing you can do but i like to believe that you can always try to improve yourself.
Also I do teach students touch and goes. I was not saying you shouldn't. I am just trying to have an informed discussion on the topic of accident prevention. To take the attitude that something is a common accident and just forget about it is a mistake in my book. I believe it is important to always be wondering what you can do better an to learn from other people's mishaps.
Of course you or I can recover from a stall at 100 feet agl but my point was that a student can't after pitching to 45 degrees above the horizon in an aircraft with limited thrust. Any examiner you talk to regarding stall/spin awareness wants an applicant to be able to discuss situations to avoid/be aware of where stalls can be most hazardous, not just be able to recover from one.
In the interest of that I am always looking at stall/spin accidents to see how they occured and more often than not it is not the inability to recover that is the problem, it is the lack of altitude.
Students need to be taught to avoid nose high attitudes at slow airspeeds near the ground with uncoordinated control inputs wouldn't you agree?
And as for the landing accidents, what I meant to say was that 100% of these occured doing touch and goes. There has not been an accident on or near the runway involving full stop landings in the last 12 months. So in analysing these accidents it is my job to develop training policies to help avoid these in the future.
As for conventional gear aircraft, I have flown high powered military tailwheel aircraft for years so I am talking about something which I know. My question is if touch and goes are harder (as you say) then why do the regs require full stop landings before carrying passengers? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the more difficult operation as is the FAA's tendency. Why do you think they require instrument students to do a partial panel non-precision approach - they state that because they feel this is the most difficult approach you can do partial panel. So it seems that the FAA feels that full stops are more difficult. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just trying to discuss it without attacking other people's ideas.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only solo landing requirement listed in part 61 in fact is to do 3 full stop landings. And why do you think recent experience requirements require you to do your landings to a full stop if in a tailwheel aircraft or at night? Could it be because the full stop portion is considered more challenging then merely doing a crash and go...? Food for thought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is this only solo requirement located?
61.109 (a) 5 (iii)
3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower.
Do you know how many times I have had an instructor send his private student to me for a checkride only to discover that he had the student do touch and goes when he soloed and has never done 3 full stop landings!
Again, to make my position clear. I do teach touch and goes. I am not saying they are bad/wrong. I am just discussing the situation at hand, every instructor should make it his mission to give their students every chance of never having an accident.
Thanks for your comments. You missed my point however. Not only was I saying it IS appropriate to teach full stalls it is also required by regulation. And no I am NOT teaching recoveries wrong. It is my job to hand out pilot certificates, so part of my job is to determine what other instructors are doing wrong, and help change that!
Clearly 100 feet wasn't enough altitude for this particular student to recover in - does that mean he never demonstrated good stall recovery at altitude in a controlled situation - probably not. So what else then does an instructor need to do? Maybe there's nothing you can do but i like to believe that you can always try to improve yourself.
Also I do teach students touch and goes. I was not saying you shouldn't. I am just trying to have an informed discussion on the topic of accident prevention. To take the attitude that something is a common accident and just forget about it is a mistake in my book. I believe it is important to always be wondering what you can do better an to learn from other people's mishaps.
Of course you or I can recover from a stall at 100 feet agl but my point was that a student can't after pitching to 45 degrees above the horizon in an aircraft with limited thrust. Any examiner you talk to regarding stall/spin awareness wants an applicant to be able to discuss situations to avoid/be aware of where stalls can be most hazardous, not just be able to recover from one.
In the interest of that I am always looking at stall/spin accidents to see how they occured and more often than not it is not the inability to recover that is the problem, it is the lack of altitude.
Students need to be taught to avoid nose high attitudes at slow airspeeds near the ground with uncoordinated control inputs wouldn't you agree?
And as for the landing accidents, what I meant to say was that 100% of these occured doing touch and goes. There has not been an accident on or near the runway involving full stop landings in the last 12 months. So in analysing these accidents it is my job to develop training policies to help avoid these in the future.
As for conventional gear aircraft, I have flown high powered military tailwheel aircraft for years so I am talking about something which I know. My question is if touch and goes are harder (as you say) then why do the regs require full stop landings before carrying passengers? Wouldn't it make more sense to require the more difficult operation as is the FAA's tendency. Why do you think they require instrument students to do a partial panel non-precision approach - they state that because they feel this is the most difficult approach you can do partial panel. So it seems that the FAA feels that full stops are more difficult. I am not saying I agree with this, I am just trying to discuss it without attacking other people's ideas.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only solo landing requirement listed in part 61 in fact is to do 3 full stop landings. And why do you think recent experience requirements require you to do your landings to a full stop if in a tailwheel aircraft or at night? Could it be because the full stop portion is considered more challenging then merely doing a crash and go...? Food for thought
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is this only solo requirement located?
61.109 (a) 5 (iii)
3 takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating control tower.
Do you know how many times I have had an instructor send his private student to me for a checkride only to discover that he had the student do touch and goes when he soloed and has never done 3 full stop landings!
Again, to make my position clear. I do teach touch and goes. I am not saying they are bad/wrong. I am just discussing the situation at hand, every instructor should make it his mission to give their students every chance of never having an accident.
Last edited: