What the hell kind of airplane are you flying where you add power to recover from a stall? Unless you're flying something with a very high thrust to weight ratio, you should nose down to break the stall, then add power afterwards.
The author has it wrong, and I hope he corrects it. If you hear a buzzing noise, that means the airplane is going to stall if it loses more speed, but there's a chance that the speed is too low given how high the nose might be. Adding too much power at that moment, depending on the exact level of the nose, will cause the plane to lurch upward, which would definitely increase the chances of a stall. The right step would be to lower the nose to get more lift over the wings, and slowly add additional power as more airspeed is gained.
Not really, what could happen is a wing stall on single engines, but chances are that wont happen. :D That's a procedural recovery that fits most airplanes, put the nose down on a king air and depending on your altitude, you are doomed.
No, this definitely isn't the appropriate procedure for most airplanes, and the few situations where it was taught as a standard are now being reevaluated.
Yes. So we've now covered the range of cases and in each of them your suggestion is wrong. Light aircraft pilots should pitch down first, then add power, regardless of CG. Heavy aircraft and jet pilots were previously taught to add power first, but are now taught to pitch down first, then add power.
That's it - you always need to pitch down first, and then add power. The airplane doesn't care where your nose is pointed, and CG really doesn't matter here.
So, if you're saying that if you're descending through 80 feet AGL and you hear the stall-warning horn, you're going to pitch the nose down _first_ ?
Sorry - if I'm throwing in full-power first and doing whatever I have to do do to get leveled out and stabilized. Adding power in a single-engine will immediately increase airflow over the wings and thus _reduce_ the angle of attack.
Yes - you will have to fight the tendency of the nose to come up, but low to the ground there aren't really too many options.
It's basically a go-around, and the go-around procedure is power-first.
ATCs might be able to recover from a stall while only losing 100 feet, but most private pilots will need much more and an untrained pilot would not even get close.
I'm ABSOLUTELY pitching down first. Especially when you're on final approach, it's always attitude (pitch) to control your airspeed, and power to control your rate of descent, not the other way around.
If you're really on your toes, you'll end up doing both at almost the same time anyway, but pitching down is what'll get you out of a stall, not adding power.
Well, every situation is different so it's hard to say what the procedure is, but generally what I outlined above is the correct way of preventing / mitigating a stall. I should've mentioned that what I wrote above is for single engines, I'm not rated on multi-engine aircraft and can't say anything about the procedure for those. Keep in mind I'm not suggesting putting the airplane in a dive to recover altitude, the nose should perhaps be just a little above or at level attitude. Pilots who have their airline transport pilot certificates(basically, the people who fly commerical for FedEx or United, etc.) are trained to recover within 100ft or less during a stall.
I will say though, if you're close to stalling in a King Air such that putting the nose down will cause imminent danger, you're already in a lot of danger if a stall about to occur.
When flying gliders at low altitude, we usually think about the angle of attack first and airspeed second. When circling a thermal, I often cross below the stalling speed due to turbulence etc.
But if you don't try to force the glider to maintain altitude by pulling on the stick and just let it fall through, maintaining the same angle of attack, you'll quickly fall a few meters and gain enough airspeed to resume level flight. So you've been below the stalling speed, but you haven't actually stalled the airplane. This maneuver makes you lose a minimum of altitude, but obviously you don't want to be forced to do it at very low altitude.
In a regular single piston engine aircraft it's nose down, then add power. You always fix angle of attack first. Same applies to a power-on (eg takeoff) stall: nose down.
Concur, nose down first. It's not that no one mentions adding power (which is what OP implied). Recovery was always pitch down to regain airspeed while reaching with the other hand to begin adding throttle, but power is still "one of the first things."
From what I can recall, AF447 was stalling but the fly-by-wire system was stabilising the stall. Normally the FBW system wouldn't let the pilot stall but an earlier event caused it to enter some kind of unusual mode. That same event also made the pilot mistrust the instrumentation for the remainder of the flight. Because of this and the stable handling (+ bad visibility, lack of training and a whole load of other contributing factors) he didn't believe his speed was low enough to be stalling.
...and if the nose is up? You're not going to power your way out of the stall, even in a King Air - you still need to pitch down first. This is one of the factors that put Air France 447 into a deep stall prior to their unfortunate end.
