A letter I sent to the Wings Channel

Peter Duniho wrote:

I guess that's a matter of definition, isn't it? IMHO, the "stall" is the
point just *past* maximum lift, where the wing is producing very little lift
at all. Of course, the wing is always producing *some* lift, but for all
intents and purposes, I think it's reasonable to say to a primary student
that the wing is producing no lift when stalled.

At what point does the inaccuracy become unreasonable? If the wing were
producing no lift, the airplane would be falling. Not "losing
altitude", falling. That's not what happens. The stall, by definition,
starts where the coefficient of lift begins to decrease with increasing
angle of attack. It's simple; why not say it correctly and be done with
it?

I was simply offering my subjective opinion. Many enjoy the show, and
that's great. Some seem to find both instructor *and* student
annoying. That also is okay, but the student doesn't seem so bothersome
to me. I just think it's a little over the top to offer an instructive
show, on a network devoted to aircraft and flying, that perpetuates
common misconceptions and errors. They're in a perfect position to do
it right, yet for some reason don't.

Tim