Power-On and Power-Off Stalls

The FAA splits stall training by the situation it models rather than by the aerodynamics, because the two accident scenarios are different. The power-off stall reproduces the approach and landing case: the applicant configures the airplane in the approach or landing configuration as specified by the evaluator, establishes a stabilized descent, and transitions smoothly from the approach or landing attitude to a pitch attitude that induces a stall. The power-on stall reproduces the departure case: the applicant establishes the takeoff, departure or cruise configuration and pitches up from there.

The skill tolerances in FAA-S-ACS-7 differ in one revealing way. Both Tasks require a specified heading held within ±10° in straight flight and a specified angle of bank not to exceed 20° in turning flight, but the power-off stall allows ±5° on that bank and the power-on stall allows ±10°. The wider tolerance on the power-on Task reflects how much harder the airplane is to hold in coordinated flight at high power and low airspeed, where torque, P-factor and slipstream effect are all working against the pilot. Both Tasks require coordinated flight to be maintained throughout, the cues at the first indication of a stall to be acknowledged, and recovery at the first indication or after a full stall as the evaluator specifies, followed by configuring as the manufacturer recommends and accelerating to Vₓ or Vᵧ.

Entry altitude is common to both: the applicant must select an altitude that allows the Task to be completed no lower than 1,500 feet AGL in a single-engine aeroplane, or 3,000 feet AGL in a multi-engine aeroplane.

Both Tasks appear at private and commercial level, which makes them a useful marker of how the ACS scales. The manoeuvre does not change between certificates; what changes is the depth of knowledge and risk management expected around it, and — at commercial level — the addition of the accelerated stall as a third, separate Task.

The uncoordinated power-on stall is where instructors invest the most time, and for good reason: it is the configuration that most closely models the departure stall‐spin accident, and the one where a student's feet, rather than their hands, decide the outcome. Schools that treat the bank tolerance as the whole grading criterion tend to miss this. The ACS lists “factors and situations that could lead to an inadvertent power-on stall, spin, and loss of control” as a risk-management element precisely because the yaw, not the pitch, is the hazard.

Aviatize records power-on and power-off stalls as distinct syllabus objectives with their own grades rather than as one combined stall lesson, so a school can see which of the two a student is actually weak on. Because every attempt is stored against the student record, an instructor picking up a student mid-course can read the history rather than re-diagnosing from scratch, and the pre-checkride review draws on recorded grades instead of recollection.