From the DPE: Secondary Stalls Aren’t the Same as a “Second” Stall

Demonstrating a “secondary stall” is not the same thing as encountering a “second stall” in a row during pilot training. Reading this on the surface may sound like I am saying the same thing, but they are very different.

Pilots frequently demonstrate a lack of familiarity, inadvertently entering what they might casually call a “second stall” rather than executing a proper, controlled secondary stall demonstration. This distinction is not semantic; it reveals a fundamental gap in understanding that can have deadly consequences in real-world scenarios such as go-arounds, post-takeoff climbs, or maneuvering at low altitude. Proficiency in secondary stalls—both in demonstration and deep conceptual understanding—equips pilots to break the cycle of stall-and-recovery errors before they escalate.

The demonstration of secondary stalls is one that many DPEs commonly see applicants, especially on CFI practical tests, show a lack of proficiency or outright confusion.

So let’s help clear that up.

What is a Secondary Stall?

Secondary stalls are explicitly referenced in the FAA’s Commercial Pilot – Airplane Airman Certification Standards (ACS) under the risk management elements for power-off, power-on, and accelerated stalls, and are elevated to a dedicated demonstration task in the Flight Instructor ACS. Secondary stalls are far more than a checkride checkbox. They represent a critical lesson in aerodynamic humility—one that teaches pilots why rushed or incomplete recoveries from an initial stall can cascade into something far more dangerous.

The purpose of the demonstration for CFI applicants is to teach the importance of proper stall recovery technique (reduce AOA first by lowering the nose, add power as needed, then smoothly recover altitude without rushing).

It highlights the risk of failing to fully break a stall and reducing the angle of attack to a point where a “secondary” stall will occur at a lower angle relative to the horizon. This would be especially critical in phases of flight such as a go-around, after takeoff, or near the ground.

To appreciate the importance of secondary stall training, it is important to understand the maneuver itself. According to the FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3) and Advisory Circular AC 61-67C, Stall and Spin Awareness Training, a secondary stall occurs when a pilot attempts to hasten recovery from a primary (initial) stall before the wing has regained sufficient airspeed and the angle of attack (AOA) has been adequately reduced. The result is an immediate re-stall—often more violent and aggressive than the first—because the upward pitching momentum from excessive back pressure drives the AOA beyond the critical point again, sometimes leading to a deeper stall or even spin entry.

Aerodynamically, this is straightforward yet insidious. A primary stall happens when the wing exceeds its critical AOA, producing a sudden loss of lift and an increase in drag. Proper recovery demands a deliberate reduction in AOA (by relaxing or pushing forward on the yoke/stick), coordination with rudder, and power application as appropriate—before re-establishing a climb or level attitude. If the pilot releases back pressure only partially or too briefly, or worse, yanks back aggressively while airspeed is still low, the wing never fully “unstalls.” The angular momentum of the nose pitching upward compounds the AOA increase, often producing a sharper buffet, more pronounced wing drop, and greater altitude loss. As AC 61-67C notes: “A secondary stall is caused by attempting to hasten the completion of a stall recovery before the aircraft has regained sufficient flying speed.” Recovery from the secondary stall follows the same principles—forward pressure to break the stall—yet the energy state is lower, making the stall feel deeper.

And this maneuver isn’t just for CFI applicants. The Commercial Pilot ACS explicitly lists “Secondary stalls, accelerated stalls, and cross-control stalls” in the risk management elements (e.g., CA.VII.B.R5 for power-off stalls). Commercial applicants must demonstrate not only recovery from primary stalls at the first indication (or full stall at evaluator discretion) but also articulate how to avoid secondary stalls. For CFI candidates, the bar is higher. They must demonstrate deliberately exceeding the critical AOA a second time during recovery, followed by prompt and appropriate recovery. The applicant must simultaneously explain the aerodynamics, flight situations where it occurs, recognition cues, entry/recovery procedures, and common errors.

What are DPEs Seeing Students Struggle With?

DPEs frequently see CFI applicants who, rather than demonstrating a continued exceedance of the critical angle of attack into a secondary stall, break the initial stall, regain airspeed, and then enter an entirely separate stall.

DPEs frequently observe applicants who are asked to demonstrate or discuss secondary stalls, default to performing a full primary stall, complete a textbook recovery (nose down, power up, climb back to altitude), then induce an entirely separate stall. They call this a “second stall.” This is not the secondary stall required by the standards; it is simply two independent stalls performed back-to-back, missing the critical recovery-phase element entirely.

The difference is nuanced, but it is critical to demonstrating and understanding what a secondary stall really is and why they are even more dangerous than an initial stall.

This error seems to stem from several factors. First, from initial private pilot training, the focus often emphasizes avoidance and recovery at the first indication, with limited hands-on exposure to full stalls or their mishandled recoveries. Stall practice is frequently rushed due to time pressures, altitude constraints, or instructor caution. Students memorize recovery procedures and acronyms such as “PARE” (Power, Ailerons neutral, Rudder, Elevator forward) but rarely internalize the feel of an incomplete recovery. Second, there is a psychological barrier: inducing a stall is already uncomfortable; deliberately botching the recovery to create a secondary stall feels counterintuitive and risky. As a result, students (and sometimes CFIs) treat the demonstration as an academic exercise rather than a visceral lesson.

All too often DPEs are seeing applicants at all levels of training who have never fully induced a stall and managed to keep flying the aircraft (at an appropriate altitude, of course) while a stall is occurring, managing yaw and roll and feeling a true stall. Pilots have simply been taught to “recover at the first indication” and have never truly felt what a stall is like.

The consequences in training are immediate and instructional. An unintended “second stall” during primary stall practice—triggered by the student instinctively pulling back too soon—often surprises both student and instructor. The aircraft may drop a wing more dramatically, lose more altitude than expected, or require firmer inputs to recover. This is exactly the “secondary stall” the ACS wants pilots to experience intentionally so they can recognize and correct it in the moment. Yet without prior familiarity, students mislabel it or fail to connect it to real-world risks. Instructors report this pattern repeatedly: the student recovers from the primary stall, breathes a sigh of relief, then yanks the nose up prematurely to regain altitude—boom, secondary stall. The aircraft pitches down sharply again, and the lesson becomes one of embarrassment rather than enlightenment.

Finding Purpose in the Secondary Stall Demonstration

The true value of secondary stall training lies in the difference between demonstration and understanding. A proper demonstration is a deliberate, scripted event performed at a safe altitude (to allow recovery above 3,000 feet AGL) and is intended to emphasize what may develop with incomplete or inappropriate stall recovery procedures. It also demonstrates that a stall is not determined by the aircraft’s pitch attitude relative to the horizon, but by the angle of attack of the wing relative to the airflow.

When properly demonstrated, a secondary stall demonstration can highlight the fact that a stall can occur at any deck angle, frequently showing that the stall is being encountered at a lower and lower nose attitude relative to the horizon.

It is an important demonstration to make to pilots who need to understand that a stall is broken by reducing the angle of attack, not just nose attitude in relation to the horizon.

This controlled demonstration also demystifies the violence of a secondary stall, proving it is recoverable with proper inputs. Most importantly, it builds confidence that the correct recovery—full AOA reduction—is non-negotiable.

The FAA’s emphasis on secondary stalls in both Commercial and CFI standards is no accident. It addresses a documented weakness in pilot training: over-reliance on “minimum altitude loss” recovery myths. By requiring commercial pilots to manage the risk of secondary stalls and CFIs to demonstrate and teach them, the ACS ensures that higher-certificated pilots become vectors for safety culture. A CFI who can confidently demonstrate a secondary stall can instill proper habits in dozens of students over a career, breaking the chain of poor technique that contributes to accidents.

Loss-of-control accidents continue to claim lives. Secondary stall identification and recovery are not optional—they are foundational. Commercial pilots and CFIs who embrace them not only pass their checkrides but become safer, more effective aviators. If you are working on your CFI training, be ready to discuss and demonstrate the difference between a stall, a “secondary” stall, and simply encountering a “second” stall in sequence. Most importantly, be able to teach those concepts to the next generation of pilots you will be helping train.

• Author
• Recent Posts

Jason Blair

Jason Blair is an active single- and multi-engine flight instructor and FAA Designated Pilot Examiner with over 6,000 hours total time, including 3,500 hours of instruction given and more than 3,500 hours as a DPE. He has issued over 2,500 pilot certificates and flown more than 100 different aircraft makes and models.

A NAFI Master Flight Instructor and 2023 Michigan FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year, Jason has over 30 years of flying experience and two decades as a flight instructor. He was named 2016 Michigan CFI of the Year and has served as Executive Director of the National Association of Flight Instructors. His service includes national committees such as the FAA’s Runway Safety Council, the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee, and the TSA Aviation Safety Advisory Council.

In addition to examiner duties, Jason works with aviation associations and companies as a consultant and writer, focusing on pilot training, testing, and safety. He holds undergraduate degrees in Human Resource Management and International and Comparative Politics, plus a master’s degree in Development Administration from Western Michigan University. Originally from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, he is an avid outdoorsman who enjoys scuba diving, skiing, hunting, fishing, mountain biking, and golfing.

Latest posts by Jason Blair (see all)

• Not Every ATC Landing Clearance Means the Same Thing - August 17, 2026
• The 12-Second VFR Cloud Clearance Rule - July 13, 2026
• From the DPE: Secondary Stalls Aren’t the Same as a “Second” Stall - June 15, 2026