I am not sure what was the goal of that training extract? high unlikely pilots intentionally spin with power? (other than in Extra with parachute and crowd to applaud) but lot of people are taught to hastily add 100% power to recover from unusual high nose attitudes, use 100% power to recover from stalls and spins
Not surprising why things could suddenly “go flat” in the heat of the moment, especially with rearward GC…
but intentionally fully stalling a twin is considered suicidal round here
The UK/EASA MEP CPL practical test requires the candidate to demonstrate a clean configuration full stall (either to full back stick or stall break) with a precise adherence to a standard stall recovery.
That’s indeed what I had to do this evening as MEP renewal, as well as an approach to stall in landing config, some steep turns, and a some single engine GA, full power at the blue line.
The UK/EASA MEP CPL practical test requires the candidate to demonstrate a clean configuration full stall (either to full back stick or stall break) with a precise adherence to a standard stall recovery.
Are one required to demonstrate power on stalls in dirty config? (no MCAS on board)
RobertL18C wrote:
The UK/EASA MEP CPL practical test requires the candidate to demonstrate a clean configuration full stall (either to full back stick or stall break) with a precise adherence to a standard stall recovery.
Interesting. For the FAA equivalent rating (which I have), the standard is Recover at the first indication of a stall or after a full stall has occurred, as specified by the evaluator. Reference here
In practice full stalls in a twin are neither trained nor required during the checkride, at least not here in SoCal. Recovery is initiated after the first stall indications (buffet, horn). During training we did take the airplane very close to a full stall on one or two occasions, but never let it fully stall.
Edited to add: the ACS specifies that accelerated stalls have to be recovered at the first indications. See above linked doc for reference.
I assume many more have died in stall exercises than in stalls? Continuing into the stall further intentionally instead of recovering / unloading wing is kind of negative training. It makes sense to experience it, as are spins and other upsets and know what to do about it but better to do that in a dedicated UPRT session. Just my opinion.
Peter wrote:
This shows the result in the above video of a Baron 58 flat spin. The DA42 would be similar. Not much left of it. The vertical speed is around 100kt.
The reason everyone in the Swedish case survived was that the airframe was impaled on a tree which went through the cabin, amazingly without hitting any of the people on board. Sliding down over the tree, the aircraft came to a stop reasonably slowly.
A clean, idle power, S&L fully developed stall and SSR is a non event in a DA42 and is done all the time in U.K. MEP training and tests. Others are done as approach to the stall; and with power on you don’t want to be messing around with the fully developed stall.
Peter wrote:
I see stupid-PC youtube has had complaints and has made the video over-18 only.
I can imagine what kind of effect it would have on anxious flyers or worse, anxious spouses. But most of those are over 18…
