Another of those unreliable AC engines stalled on approach

Kyle Boatright wrote:
What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word "stalled"
has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Of course, it's going to be impossible to impose. Sort of like the
attempt to change from "uncontrolled airports" to "nontowered airports"
:-)

Kev

"Kev" wrote in message
ps.com...

Kyle Boatright wrote:
What are the odds that the pilot stalled the aircraft and the engine was
performing just fine? Writers often miss the fact that the word
"stalled"
has an additional meaning in the aviation realm.

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Of course, it's going to be impossible to impose. Sort of like the
attempt to change from "uncontrolled airports" to "nontowered airports"
:-)

Kev

Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."

At least that's what was used in multiple seminars at this past AOPA Expo.

Jay B

Jay Beckman writes:

Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."

That implies that pilots are not in control at other fields, which is
just as bad (if not worse) than implying that a field is out of
control.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay Beckman writes:
Actually, I believe the new buzz phrase is "Pilot Controlled Field."

That implies that pilots are not in control at other fields, which is
just as bad (if not worse) than implying that a field is out of
control.

No, it implies (to non-pilots) that Towers are in control of other
fields. Remember, most laymen believe that ATC is in charge of every
plane every second, and are surprised when they hear about an airplane
taking off without filing a flight plan.

Kev

"Kev" wrote in
ps.com:

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Kev" wrote in
ps.com:

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for
an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.



The problem is the word stall means something to the general public. When
they hear the word stall they associate with something they understand in
this cas, the engine stopping.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
"Kev" wrote in
ps.com:

I sometimes think the aviation community should come up with an
alternative description for a wing "stall", so that the layman doesn't
confuse it with engines. Anyone care to propose a nice short
descriptive phrase?

Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for
an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.



The problem is the word stall means something to the general public. When
they hear the word stall they associate with something they understand in
this cas, the engine stopping.

I like the term used in a Recent Lycoming AD: "Uncommanded
engine shutdown." It was referring to a catastrohic engine failure.
Understatement, huh?

Dan

Judah wrote:
Why should we have to change our use of the term? I think the new term for an
engine stall should be an engine shutdown, and stall should relate only to
loss of lift over a wing or other airfoil.

--- others please note his smiley

You're right, that should be easy to do. Just a few kazillion people
to retrain

If I see another movie where the engines stall, and the airplane starts
screaming down at high speed to the ground while the pilots valiantly
pull back on the yokes with all their might, I'm gonna choke.

I once suggested that AOPA sponsor a "young reporters" day each year,
to get all the local news types up in the air. I believe someone said
that was tried?

Kev

Kev writes:

If I see another movie where the engines stall, and the airplane starts
screaming down at high speed to the ground while the pilots valiantly
pull back on the yokes with all their might, I'm gonna choke.

A very common popular misconception is that any problem with an
airplane will cause it to drop to the ground like a rock. The idea
seems to be that an aircraft is just barely being sustained in the
air, and that any problem is rather like cutting the cable in an
elevator shaft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"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.