Another of those unreliable AC engines stalled on approach

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"xxx" wrote in news:1166574799.928243.156580
@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

snip
... the engine on his light
sport aircraft stalled at between 50 and 100 feet in the air and
crashed, nose first, at the end of the grass runway.


You should try to become somewhat educated before you take the words of
journalists as gospel.

Airplanes do not suddenly go extremely nose low simply because of engine
failure. They essentially become gliders and begin descending in a manner
that is typically controllable and gradual. Pilots are trained to manage
such a situation to maximize their glide ratio so they can find a suitable
place to land. I believe the typical glide ratio of a small airplane is
over a mile of glide distance for every 1000' of available altitude.

On the other hand, if the Pilot stalled the aircraft (either with or
without engine power) by not properly managing the airspeed across his
wings (for example by climbing too aggressively), the plane may lose its
lift (aka stall), and drop its nose somewhat suddenly.

Part of the Pilot Private Training syllabus focuses on recognizing the
onset of a stall early and being able to recover from such a stall within
50'. There is even a sensor on the plane's wing to sound an alert in the
cockpit if a stall is imminent.

It seems likely to me that the wing, not the engine, "stalled", causing
the
plane to drop its nose suddenly, and crash into the ground. Possibly the
pilot did not have the proper training or attention to recover at such a
low altitude.

It is equally as likely that the journalist who wrote the article has no
background in aviation, and as such did not accurately interpret or report
the information collected. Rather than properly research the story, she
met
her deadline and moved on.

Several of us have allowed the reporter's phrasing to brighten our day(s),
and I believe that the OP was the first.

Peter