any stall recovery is summed up as "fly the airplane". If folks remembered that everything comes down to "fly the airplane" we might have less accidents aka Colgan, etc.

 

Sometimes CFIs pick up weird ideas and pass them on. They tend to be based on either "it's what I learned" or on a misunderstanding of something else.

The only power-on stall situation I can think of that would involve reducing power is if the stall wasn't recovered properly and the airplane entered a spin. Maybe somewhere along the way, some CFI added 2+2 together and came up with 7?

 

I've never heard of that and it sounds improper to me... reducing power to recover from a power-on stall that is.

Only time I reduce the throttles on any kind of recovery is Vmc demos and spins.

 

ahh, couple questions.

1) Does this mean you are going to continue to reduce the power to idle on power on stalls even though an AC from the FAA says to do the opposite?

2) Have you ever asked these several CFIs and DPEs WHY they are doing this? What exactly is the reason to pull the power out, because I can't think of one other than a spin situation.

It is totally possible especially in a small FBO type school that all the instructors, and even the local DPEs all learned what they know from the same person(or few persons). Just because a few people told you "for sure" that this is the correct procedure doesn't always make it true.

When I was a CFI the AFH, PHAC, and IFH were ALWAYS our go-to for settling arguments either among ourselves over beers, or if a student just didn't believe what you were telling them. Also all my lessons were generally structured around what was in those books with some input from other sources if they weren't in depth enough( aerodynamics for naval aviators, etc...)

 

Reduce angle of attack... power applied simultaneously --as long as the airplane can take it & the pilot can maintain coordination-- Most trainers have no problem with this. Some higher performance airplanes will run out of rudder if you just go to full power at a sufficiently high angle of attack (p-factor).

 

I think you guys are misinterpreting...

I think he agrees wholeheartedly with everybody's post.

 

I just picked up on that too, and I'd read his response at least ten times with a large degree of incredulity. About the 12th time I finally got that maybe he was saying something different that what I thought. Surprised he hasn't jumped in to clarify.

 

Not to put words in the OP's mouth, but perhaps...

should have been written as:

 

Agreed, thank you for clarifying.

 

Haha, I love engrish