Narrative:

After I turned on base leg and was cleared for landing; an IFR jet contacted the tower and reported final approach. I was asked to do a 360 and rejoin base leg which I started. I didn't like the setup for landing so I requested to rejoin downwind instead of base and was granted that. As I was turning back to downwind (almost at the point where I would have to turn base); another IFR plane approached and was cleared for landing. Again I had to maneuver for spacing. I joined base and turned on final when I noticed I had full flaps; a low power setting; carb heat and was below glide path. My airspeed had decayed to between 40 and 45 mph (my cessna is calibrated in mph; not kph which is below published stall speed. I was also in a bank to align with the runway. I added power; retracted some flaps and made a normal landing. I was lucky. I should have been in a stall/spin at an altitude too low to recover. When talking to the tower; I was paying more attention to trying to accommodate them than I was to flying the airplane and it almost cost me my life. I didn't reconfigure the plane for normal flight and I didn't take into account that I had been descending from pattern altitude or had flaps and carb heat on since reducing power on downwind so my 360 was performed at too low an altitude and with the wrong configuration of the airplane. In retrospect; and in the future; I will request vectors out of the traffic pattern so I can rejoin and make a stabilized approach. I was a student pilot in the 1990's so I know training has changed since then; but during the stall recovery training; the scenarios were power on stalls; wings level; and power off stalls; again with wings level. Training at altitude for this type of scenario where the student is presented with a pattern altitude above 3;000 feet AGL then asked to make changes and trained to reconfigure the plane would be a life saver. My scenario was pretty much the same as the cirrus that spun in at houston hobby airport. The difference is my plane is much more forgiving than a cirrus. Given the number of stall/spin accidents; I think training needs to be updated to make the pilots much more aware of potential problems before they can happen. Another possible improvement; if it isn't already implemented; would be for air traffic controllers to get some sort of training on where the most critical areas of flight are (low altitude; low power; flaps down). I want to stress that this situation is in no way the controllers fault or responsibility. They can't fly the plane for me. I'm not sure what; if anything; could be gained by this training but I put it out there for thought.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot flying C-150 allowed airspeed to decay on approach to landing.

Narrative: After I turned on base leg and was cleared for landing; an IFR jet contacted the Tower and reported final approach. I was asked to do a 360 and rejoin base leg which I started. I didn't like the setup for landing so I requested to rejoin downwind instead of base and was granted that. As I was turning back to downwind (almost at the point where I would have to turn base); another IFR plane approached and was cleared for landing. Again I had to maneuver for spacing. I joined base and turned on final when I noticed I had full flaps; a low power setting; carb heat and was below glide path. My airspeed had decayed to between 40 and 45 MPH (my Cessna is calibrated in MPH; not KPH which is below published stall speed. I was also in a bank to align with the runway. I added power; retracted some flaps and made a normal landing. I was lucky. I should have been in a stall/spin at an altitude too low to recover. When talking to the Tower; I was paying more attention to trying to accommodate them than I was to flying the airplane and it almost cost me my life. I didn't reconfigure the plane for normal flight and I didn't take into account that I had been descending from pattern altitude or had flaps and carb heat on since reducing power on downwind so my 360 was performed at too low an altitude and with the wrong configuration of the airplane. In retrospect; and in the future; I will request vectors out of the traffic pattern so I can rejoin and make a stabilized approach. I was a student pilot in the 1990's so I know training has changed since then; but during the stall recovery training; the scenarios were power on stalls; wings level; and power off stalls; again with wings level. Training at altitude for this type of scenario where the student is presented with a pattern altitude above 3;000 feet AGL then asked to make changes and trained to reconfigure the plane would be a life saver. My scenario was pretty much the same as the Cirrus that spun in at Houston Hobby airport. The difference is my plane is much more forgiving than a Cirrus. Given the number of stall/spin accidents; I think training needs to be updated to make the pilots much more aware of potential problems before they can happen. Another possible improvement; if it isn't already implemented; would be for air traffic controllers to get some sort of training on where the most critical areas of flight are (low altitude; low power; flaps down). I want to stress that this situation is in NO WAY the controllers fault or responsibility. They can't fly the plane for me. I'm not sure what; if anything; could be gained by this training but I put it out there for thought.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.