Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohazi | Hacker News Reader

No, this definitely isn't the appropriate procedure for most airplanes, and the few situations where it was taught as a standard are now being reevaluated.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FAAProposesStallRecover...

View on HN

Those are class heavy, not light :D

Yes. So we've now covered the range of cases and in each of them your suggestion is wrong. Light aircraft pilots should pitch down first, then add power, regardless of CG. Heavy aircraft and jet pilots were previously taught to add power first, but are now taught to pitch down first, then add power.

That's it - you always need to pitch down first, and then add power. The airplane doesn't care where your nose is pointed, and CG really doesn't matter here.

So, if you're saying that if you're descending through 80 feet AGL and you hear the stall-warning horn, you're going to pitch the nose down _first_ ?

Sorry - if I'm throwing in full-power first and doing whatever I have to do do to get leveled out and stabilized. Adding power in a single-engine will immediately increase airflow over the wings and thus _reduce_ the angle of attack.

Yes - you will have to fight the tendency of the nose to come up, but low to the ground there aren't really too many options.

It's basically a go-around, and the go-around procedure is power-first.

ATCs might be able to recover from a stall while only losing 100 feet, but most private pilots will need much more and an untrained pilot would not even get close.

I'm ABSOLUTELY pitching down first. Especially when you're on final approach, it's always attitude (pitch) to control your airspeed, and power to control your rate of descent, not the other way around.

If you're really on your toes, you'll end up doing both at almost the same time anyway, but pitching down is what'll get you out of a stall, not adding power.

This is seriously dangerous advice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com