ACS Slow Flight Instruction??

D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
The ACS stipulates that slow flight is now supposed to be performed without the stall horn annunciating.

So, there's been a debate -sometimes almost religiously ferocious- about this.

One side argues you're not slow enough to truly experience flight on the back side of the power curve without the horn sounding. The other side argues that we should not be training students to fly around learning to ignore the stall horn. The FAA agrees with the latter opinion.

I can understand both of these positions. So, of course, my solution is to pull the breaker or duct tape the tab or hole. ;) .

I'd like to get feedback from the community on this. What are CFIs doing? How are you training this? What are your opinions on this? What are the examiners you work with saying about this? What are they expecting/demanding on checkrides?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
In a 172 this makes slow flight way harder, best way to hold airspeed is to keep a constant tone on the reed-style warning horn.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
In a 172 this makes slow flight way harder, best way to hold airspeed is to keep a constant tone on the reed-style warning horn.
I agree, and that's my point. I am firmly of the opinion that to be useful, slow flight must be executed at the horn, and occasionally bumping the buffet. But the ACS now says that the applicant should demonstrate slow flight with no stall horn annunciating... in other words, at a speed well above real slow flight.
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
I agree, and that's my point. I am firmly of the opinion that to be useful, slow flight must be executed at the horn, and occasionally bumping the buffet. But the ACS now says that the applicant should demonstrate slow flight with no stall horn annunciating... in other words, at a speed well above real slow flight.
Maybe I'm turning into a curmudgeonly old Luddite, but this ACS crap is ridiculous.
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Maybe I'm turning into a curmudgeonly old Luddite, but this ACS crap is ridiculous.
That's cool. I'm just trying to assess how DPEs are dealing with it. What are they asking for / demanding from applicants on checkrides?

I tend toward simplicity, too. As for the ACS, with a few exceptions, it's really no different or more complicated than the PTS. It's format and organization are just different. The biggest difference is that it breaks down and defines the PTS tasks. So the new format makes it look "bigger" and takes some getting used to, but the content is largely the same. The main additive difference in content is that the ACS adds explicit definition of the Risk Management components to each task. Like any change in any situation, this has its detractors. But at the end of the day, imo, explicitly defining risk management issues and "forcing" them into the program is not a bad idea. I mean, they oughta be there anyway, right?
 

KennyM

Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm turning into a curmudgeonly old Luddite, but this ACS crap is ridiculous.
Get off my lawn!

Seriously, I see the FAA's point regarding ignoring warning devices but practicing MCA near the stall speed is very beneficial too. I do both. I introduce the maneuver like we used to do it then have the student practice to the ACS requirements.

Covering the stall warning vane, that's just brilliant. Kinda like reprogramming the simulation in the "Kobayashi Maru" scenario in the Star Trek Wrath of Khan movie. I love it!
 

Dugie8

Well-Known Member
Is there something preventing CFIs from teaching and having students fly at MCA?

I'm all for testing being done more real world but in training expose your students to the full range of the flight envelope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

A150K

Well-Known Member
Is there something preventing CFIs from teaching and having students fly at MCA?

I'm all for testing being done more real world but in training expose your students to the full range of the flight envelope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This. The ACS/PTS isn't a guidline for flight training, it's for testing. For example, I used to teach my private guys to perform stall recoveries both at the first indication (like one would hopefully do in the real world...) and after fully stalling the airplane like the PTS required...That's just one of many examples.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
I agree, and that's my point. I am firmly of the opinion that to be useful, slow flight must be executed at the horn, and occasionally bumping the buffet. But the ACS now says that the applicant should demonstrate slow flight with no stall horn annunciating... in other words, at a speed well above real slow flight.
I like the disable the stall horn idea. Depending on the airplane, it's generally not required equipment on small aircraft. Most older aircraft don't have anything but the inherent flight qualities.
 

n57flyguy

Well-Known Member
Isn't the discriminator that the airspeed should be maintained approximately 5-10 Knots above the 1G stall speed (at which the airplane is capable of maintaining controlled flight without activating a stall warning)?
 
D

Deleted member 27505

Guest
Is there something preventing CFIs from teaching and having students fly at MCA?

I'm all for testing being done more real world but in training expose your students to the full range of the flight envelope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree and, no, nothing prevents CFIs from teaching both methods. It should not be any big deal. A well prepared student, properly instructed, ought to be able to distinguish between and fly both types of slow flight.

I just don't like the potential added confusion teaching two techniques might introduce. These are primary students we're talking about. They've already got a lot on their plates to assimilate, and the stress of a checkride makes them even more prone to overload, confusion, and error.

The Law of Primacy would suggest that whatever you do first is going to get burned into your brain... so do the test required "no-horn" technique first, I suppose. The Law of Exercise emphasizes the idea that you get good at what you practice. I worry that teaching and practicing the "same thing" two different ways could easily lead to negative transfer, which could leak under the stress of a checkride.
 

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
I like the disable the stall horn idea. Depending on the airplane, it's generally not required equipment on small aircraft. Most older aircraft don't have anything but the inherent flight qualities.
"Older" is relative. It's part of the equipment list on two PA-28s that I fly regularly. I'd have to look at the AFM on any given 172 - I mention those specifically because they make up the bulk of the current training fleet. They don't have MELs and you are not legally airworthy without a working stall horn on the PA-28s.

Now, I do subscribe to the theory - as a budding CFI - that much primary training should be done in low-tech taildraggers - but I don't have any dual-given yet so my position may be hopelessly naive and ill-informed; I'm approaching this anecdotally until I have experience to replace it.

I agree and, no, nothing prevents CFIs from teaching both methods. It should not be any big deal. A well prepared student, properly instructed, ought to be able to distinguish between and fly both types of slow flight.

I just don't like the potential added confusion teaching two techniques might introduce. These are primary students we're talking about. They've already got a lot on their plates to assimilate, and the stress of a checkride makes them even more prone to overload, confusion, and error.
This is my concern as well. It makes me take the differences more into consideration.

When I first started flying, I was spooked by the stall horn - that squeal equated to "danger" with me, and it took a few flights to get used to the idea that it was an indicator and not a portent of imminent doom. I spent a LOT of time at MCA, wandering around the practice area (and that takes a while in a 152, lemmetellya) turning to various headings and staying coordinated, all the while with the horn squealing. The key to getting me comfortable with it was teaching WHY it was important and what was happening, instead of just a stimulus/response type of situation.

The Law of Primacy would suggest that whatever you do first is going to get burned into your brain... so do the test required "no-horn" technique first, I suppose. The Law of Exercise emphasizes the idea that you get good at what you practice. I worry that teaching and practicing the "same thing" two different ways could easily lead to negative transfer, which could leak under the stress of a checkride.
Good points. Something for me to consider.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
The only taildragger I've ever seen a stall horn on was a Maule. They made the pa18 until the 90s and its never had a horn.
I don't think the new decathlons do either.
It's interesting that the new standards meantion a horn while except for it being required equipment on a specific aircraft, there is no regulatory requirement to have one.
 
Top