I think we're both coming at it from slightly different angles.
When she was getting her instructors license the only stalls my mum had to do were what I call a "forced stall" which can then become a forced landing if the engine fails to catch. We've both described this fairly well separately. She also used to make her students practise these as well as stalling higher up.

I think my mum's reasoning for cutting the engines much higher up (don't know what the ceiling was but I'm guessing over 1500 feet) was that you don't have that margin of error whereby you can simply land (albeit fairly roughly) if you stall just off the ground - once you commit to a course of action at a greater height there is less of a "plan b" than just a rough landing.
Thanks for the input - you a pilot?
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Sun 31 Mar 2013, 22:49, 2 replies)

I see your point
And no - I'm no more of a pilot than a Microsoft Flight Simulator enthusiast ;)
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 1 Apr 2013, 11:09, closed)

I think..
...that you are maybe using 'stall' to mean 'the engine stopping' (as you might use the term in a car).

In aviation, 'stall' is only really used to describe an aerodynamic phenomenon i.e. the loss of lift over an aerofoil (normally the wings). You can have stalls in jet engines due to the loss of lift in compressor blades, but it doesn't sound like this is what you mean.

In any case, if you replace "stall" with "simulated engine failure" in your post, then both your and EuroSong's post make total sense.
(silene, Mon 1 Apr 2013, 12:05, closed)

Actually
I think you're right. Re-reading the OP in the context of engine cutting out makes a lot more sense.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 1 Apr 2013, 15:05, closed)