Manwell

I'm glad you are a thinker Litespeed, so let's contemplate your last comment and work backwards. It is up to others to make up their mind, as you say, but we share the responsibility if they get it wrong. Therefore, it's in our collective best interests to persevere especially when the going gets tough. The Pen IS mightier than the sword, but that was used in a completely different context. That adage refers to books, letters, legislation, the written word widely disseminated, not comments made in person, or on social media that won't have a wide audience. Yes, words are indeed potentially powerful, as inferred by the term spelling. That implies a form of magic spell is possible with the right "spelling". Note that scam emails usually have poor spelling in the text, which is a subtle warning to those aware enough to notice. However, criticism shouldn't be confused with magic spells that intend to curse someone by watering a seed of doubt, or guilt, that's already in their mind. There are three adages that combined, provide guidance. "Talk is cheap" "Actions speak louder than words" but "It's the thought that counts". Taken together, these suggest that the thought behind the action or word is most important, and also the underlying thoughts that colour, or distort the intended meaning have an effect. This is great news, because it means we have the power to decide whether to take something as a meaningless insult, or as constructive criticism. The hardest bit is being able to decide which is which without fear or favour.

That explains it well Student Pilot. I was curious how an experienced aerobatics pilot could stall unintentionally, but with the prop in reverse pitch, it would be difficult to recover enough speed to land smoothly. Considering that, he did a great job to walk away.

I've had a look at both Frank, and to be perfectly frank, both are overcomplicating the issue. If a pilot knows when an aircraft is about to stall, and is still able to fly it when it's on the edge, then it doesn't really make any sense to make them put an aircraft into such a ridiculous configuration that they think they'd never be stupid enough to do that. Pilots stall and spin when they're in familiar flight conditions, but something distracts them or takes them by surprise and they have been filled with so much bullshit they aren't clear what to do. When I was a new instructor, I wanted to give my students value for money, so I tried to give them more. More fancy ways to stall, more fancy ways to practice emergencies, all of which are attempts to substitute quantity for quality. The RAAF definition of airmanship is "The safe and efficient operation of an aircraft, both in the air, and on the ground." Note the fact that safe and efficient are given equal billing, and also note that too much of either will compromise the other and vice versa. In other words, safety and efficiency have to be balanced to ensure both are optimized. Yes, you can get too much of a good thing, that's what "too much" means... The simplest way to teach stall and spin recovery is to teach pilots how to control an aircraft at stall, and how to keep it balanced without needing a balance ball to tell them what to do. If that foundation is laid correctly, all the crazy permutations and combinations of stall and spin recovery training are a complete waste of time. In fact, they'd only serve to confuse the pilot when the SHTF. Remember the old adage, KISS? A lot of instructors know it, but very few apply it.

The simplest answer I can think of is Control Power and Attitude, Thruster. Attitude control includes balance, or yaw, and it is the key to preventing loss of control. All the other stuff is window dressing.

Yes, but Bond Rogers more....

pm, good try, but that's not true. If I was intentionally stirring people up and trying to be divisive, then it's possible I'm a troll. Remember what I did to earn a earn a swipe from you, kaz, and Garf?

Agreed Facthunter, people would believe they know where down is, but it isn't so easy in an aircraft where the horizon isn't visible which gives a datum of perception. We're also in agreement about trusting instruments in IMC, but the way IF is taught is the problem because by encouraging pilots to rapidly scan between AH, ASI, ALT, DI, and T&B, the fundamental importance of Attitude control is obscured. This point wasn't apparent to me until I asked an old CFI how he scanned instruments, and he said he didn't - he just looked at them all as one picture. It took a while for me to comprehend what he meant, but it's basically this - instead of seeing one instrument at a time, and trying to piece a total picture of performance from each instrument, he sat back and saw them all, which enabled the whole performance picture to be seen at once. This prevented small deviations of attitude to alter performance in pitch, roll, or yaw before they showed up on performance instruments. This just happens to be the exact same technique pilots use in VMC only with a much larger AI - the windows in front and on the sides. Once this level of perception is achieved, the pilot becomes truly Pilot In Command, able to control power and attitude precisely, which controls performance precisely with less effort, and it enables him to become aware of the bigger picture still - navigation, or position in space. The way I taught pilots to look at the AI may help. Imagine you're looking at your aircraft from a distance behind so instead of seeing a small 2 or 3 inch window, you're seeing the whole aircraft relative to the horizon. This broadens focus and enables them to see the other performance instruments at the same time, enabling perception of performance as well, but knowing the little airplane in the window must be held still, otherwise the performance instruments would eventually reflect that when they caught up. This way of looking at the instruments also enables the pilot to clearly see the horizon, which prevents disorientation, aka motion sickness, as mentioned previously. You'll hear no argument from me that the lives of pilots and their pax are on our heads if we don't do a better job either. We're in agreement about ab-initio training too. That is the foundation of a pilot's thinking and skills, and if that's not sound, he's effectively building on sand. The interesting thing to consider is that it's intentional. It's not a mistake. If pilots knew how to fly properly, there would be no incentive to fund an army of parasites to ensure safety, and no interest in letting a machine take over our jobs.

We basically agree then facthunter, except you are talking about far more advanced machinery and methods required to fly them than the ones I'm talking about. Despite the differences in machinery, the pilots who fly them all start in aircraft with mechanical controls with props out the front. While you're right, the same sensory perceptions we'd rely on in a bugsmasher aren't the same we'd require in a pressurised Turbofan powered aircraft, the skills learned in bugsmashers provide the foundation for all future flying, and if that's not laid right, everything built on top will be likely to develop cracks. In other words, if a pilot learns to fly by the "seat of his pants" in a lightie, and later finds the same cues are missing in a jet, then at least he's got a sound knowledge of the fundamentals so he can work out how to handle the jet in the same scenario. You're right, seat of the pants won't work if the plane is "upset", but the whole idea is to know when it's about to get "upset" and stopping doing what we're doing to upset it. If the plane never gets upset, and this is important, stall and spin recovery training is unnecessary, but still desirable. Your point about eyes being better than seat of the pants and being your worst enemy in some circumstances, is a throwback to training based on WW2 Military training requirements. That war ended nearly 80 years ago, but we still use it as an excuse to teach pilots to ignore all senses except the eyes. The rationale is that early integration of instrument interpretation would accelerate transition onto instrument flying so they could throw pilots in the deep end and watch to see how many sunk. It's quite likely that the high accident rate was more a factor of poor training than difficult conditions. The poor bastards most likely wouldn't have known how to fly properly from the start. Anyhow, the emphasis on instruments and sight is due to the ease of getting disorientated while on instruments if you didn't understand what they really were telling you in simple terms of power and attitude. It's a form of motion sickness, which is due to the eyes receiving conflicting information that doesn't agree with the middle ear and balance organs. If you're watching the AH and not visualising a distant horizon through it, especially while scanning rapidly like a deranged lunatic, then it is likely you'd become motion sick, and disorientated, especially in turbulence. However, if you've learned to fly power and attitude right, before being properly transitioned to IF, which is simply a transfer from using the big wide horizon out the front, and imagining it's condensed into a little 2 or 3 inch window instead, then the transition to IF isn't any more difficult, in fact, it's probably easier. I've thought this through Nev, and I can assure you the way we train pilots is fatally flawed, but we're prevented from improving things by regulatory "authorities" which are no more an authority on the subject than Mickey Mouse, as we should all know well.

"Stalling is not "just" an airspeed thing." Hear, Hear, facthunter, but trying to use AoA instead is no better. Why? Because, as Chuck said, "If a pilot doesn't know his AoA, he shouldn't be flying." but he doesn't mean knowing it from instruments or even just stick position. You would "know" when you're approaching stall, perhaps without even knowing how. Stick position is one clue, pitch attitude is another, control responsiveness another, wind noise and a sinking feeling in the seat of the pants are others. Together, they allow a pilot to "know" when the aircraft is at stall AoA, and you would probably know that increasing power or reducing pitch attitude is all that's required to prevent it from stalling. The best way to learn how to "know" when the aircraft if approaching stall, is by practising slow flight at or below stall speed at progressively lower altitudes until you're comfortable controlling an aircraft on the edge of stall close to the ground. That way, pilots would develop an instinctive knowledge when the aircraft is about to stall, and how to control it in the stall. The result being the end of loss of control accidents during take-off and landing. There's the "big secret" Thruster, in a nutshell.

100% wrong Butch. But that's the reason why we aren't interested in changing a flawed system. Because that's what we all learned and we don't see anything wrong with our training. After all, the instructor was great, and it cost us loads of cash, so how could we possibly dispute such a large investment? Try getting to ATPL A, CPL H, Grade One Instructor, Multi-engine IFR, and Aerobatics teaching approvals with thousands of hours, and then imagine how easy it would be to accept what you'd been teaching was wrong. It doesn't get any easier.

Birdseye, and Danny are both on the right track. The reason governments haven't done more to stop it, and it will fail, is because that's what it's designed to do by Government. Sorry if that truth is a bit hard to handle, but that's the very short story. The long one would take months, if not years to tell. Elon Musk's Tesla and Space One are similar scams.

I haven't been so eloquently insulted before Garfly. Okay, you're not a great guy. Happy now princess? And pm, what makes you think I should give a damn?

Okay, you're not a great guy then kaz! Gee, some people just can't take a compliment... ?

Some great info being shared above. I'm sure kaz is a great guy, even if he is a lawyer.... Some of the nicest people I've met are too, as well as some of the sneakiest. "..people who suffer hurt and damage are quick to go to lawyers to uphold their rights under those laws." True, but it is usually lawyers who wrote the laws in the first place, enabling people ..... encouraging people.... to sue for damages. The old adage "Rules are made to be broken" is so much more subtle and significant than I'd previously ever thought possible, until I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". The one valuable takeaway from the whole book was the notion that rules are indeed made to be broken, so those making them could exert moral authority over those breaking them without them actually behaving immorally! M61 offered this further insight - "I know it's not all lawyers Kaz, but there are a couple of big name ambulance chasers that come to mind, that appear to be always looking to set a new precedent to get their hands on some cash. Turbo says that the law hasn't really changed since the 30's and I believe that, but some lawyers (along with magistrates) keep changing what is "reasonable". Turbo may be sort of right about the law not really changing since the 30's, but the whole structure changed in 1973 when Gough Whitlam changed a constitutional monarchy into a corporate government whose only head of power stems from Maritime law, which is based on contracts we unwittingly perfect without full disclosure, thereby rendering them illegal ab initio. The only problem is that most people don't know they're illegal, and neither the Govt nor the legal chaps are likely to spoil our illusion, and after all, they have guns, and we don't. Funny how that happened... Anyhow, "the law" may not have changed much, but the context in which it functions has, dramatically. That's why some lawyers and magistrates keep changing things according to the latest trend, because the rules governing them have basically dissolved. If you can con someone into accepting a contract where you get their first born child as a slave, and the parties agree, and neither dispute the validity of the contract, then you're home and hosed. Then M61 threw this blinder in - " Defence is spending millions, if not billions cleaning up a chemical not actually shown to cause harm". Is that really true? I must admit not bothering to look into it because it didn't interest me at all, but if that's true, I'm definitely not surprised. A very common theme that's being playing lately. Bruce added this gem - "I am heartily sick of "safety". The word is mouthed by those who seek personal gain by pushing regulations. Many years ago, it was religion that was useful to gain power, then patriotism came in. Now its safety." It truly is a religion, because you're treated like a heretic if you dare dispute the high priests, in this case, CASA, and the application of common sense is taboo. How ironic it is that the bible itself advises to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." But you won't hear that preached in any sermon. In other words, don't believe anything at all unless you've proven it in your mind conclusively. Sort of spoils the old blind belief in dogma line, doesn't it? Finally, turbo provided this advice - "If you're adequately insured for Public Liability (as against Directors and Officers policies), and you don't commit culpable negligence, then you're unlikely ever to have to gripe about "lawyers" or "deep pockets", because if you do forget to refit the oil cap, or you do mess up a forced landing and someone is injured, your Insurance company will be managing all of that for you." I could go into great lengths in response to this idea, but suffice to say my view of insurance is this - Insurance is a bet you make against yourself in the hope that by losing, you win, against someone who knows the odds of you failing better than you do, and who never lose. Insurance is for those who can't handle full responsibility for their actions, and prefer to be waste their money with insurance companies than invest in themselves. Is that clear enough, or am I being too subtle.... ?

Thanks for the background FlyingVizsla, but I don't need to read their own PR to know their true state of mind. They've lost their way many years ago, around the time Dick Smith initiated user pays.

Litespeed, if you believe that offensiveness is able to be given whether the receiver chooses to take offence or not, then that's your choice. I could choose to take offence at your response, especially when you threaten me and call me an offensive twat, but I'm man enough to see past that, and so did many men before we became convinced words can harm. When I was a kid, the saying was "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt you." Wise words indeed, that have been long forgotten in this politically correct society. Australia was never like that when I was a kid, and I learned the hard way that racist taunts, teasing, and verbal abuse were unsophisticated ways the inarticulate tried to convey concern for something others did that prevented them from loving them. Just one of my nicknames, and there were plenty, was Jimmy the Boong, because I was dark-skinned. My old school mates still call me Jimmy, and we left school over 40 years ago. Eventually, I came to understand why they did it, and it wasn't because they didn't like me, it was because they couldn't like me when I was so self-conscious that I'd take their words as insults. In truth, not political correctness which is a distortion of the truth, there are no innocent victims. That thinking has been corrupted over my lifetime to the point that everyone seeks to blame others for their own faults. And most even believe that thinking somehow empowers them, when it really forces dependence on others for their own feelings. Ironically, that's immature, and you suggest I grow up.... In the modern parlance of politics, the pub test is a fraud. The notion that a few people down the pub must be so well-informed that they know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is patently absurd. Of course, that's not to say that many individuals in society wouldn't know better than most elected representatives, but very, very few are capable of seeing the big picture. If you assume I don't think before commenting, that's an assumption without evidential basis. You don't know me at all, and I don't know you either, and communication is one way for us to learn about each other. In conclusion, be absolutely certain that you have the ability to control yourself, and that is an absolutely essential quality for any Pilot IN COMMAND. I agree that our words have consequences, so it's very important to be precise and do our best to ensure people can't unintentionally misconstrue our meaning. Unfortunately, some still manage to, and that's a consequence we must be prepared to deal with.

The last thing I'd do is pay CASA to read their propaganda. If anyone finds it's actually useful and doesn't simply parrot CASA's opinion of itself, then I'll call the editor myself and apologize.

A bit of trivia about them, apparently Mooney had something to do with the design, which is why they were called MU2, which is pronounced MU Ni in Japanese.

Thank you kaz3g. I won't apologize for my phraseology, because offence can only be taken, not given. It's always our choice how we process words, and I agree about being respectful and learning from others wherever possible. mnewbery, I'm glad you know what I'm doing, so please let everyone else know too. Being put on your ignore list implies you don't, but maybe you're right and I'm mistaken. It wouldn't be the first time, and it probably won't be the last.

Yeah, they were known as widow makers, and that may have been because they used spoilers rather than ailerons to control roll.

In summary, you haven't the faintest idea how many died as a result of stall/spin training do you mnewbery? Don't you find it odd that that level of detail isn't available from accident reports? At least not available for free, or to the public? Do you not also find it odd that it's easier to find stats from those opposed to mandatory spin training than supporting those for it? Would any of it make sense to you if you hadn't assumed the stats provided are right? You do know there is an old adage that goes, "There are three types of lies. Lies. Damned Lies. And statistics..."

A lot means how many mnewbery? I recall one accident in the BK training area where the student was doing solo forced landing practice and stalled. One isn't a lot. There may have been more, but not "a lot". Your post reminds me of the excuses used to justify all the rules that strangle us today. Rather than fixing the problem, they always attack the symptom rather than the cause.

The thing about stall and spin recovery training is that it's completely superfluous if a pilot knows how to fly. By that I mean knows how to fly in all conditions, especially below stall speed, and how to use the rudder without looking inside. Those well documented historical reasons for discontinuing stall and spin recovery training are what you'd call excuses. Justification for doing or not doing something that isn't the real reason. The real reason is that the powers that be actually want us to have more accidents and be less competent, because their job relies on it.

Thanks for clarifying that Student Pilot. Now my thinking is able to be aligned with yours, and I agree that "extreme" stall practice can be nothing more than an instructor's vain attempt to justify themselves. I've experienced the type of training you've described, and it could also be nothing more than an instructor trying to teach what they've learned, even though they didn't see any real sense in the exercise themselves. They are usually such contrived events that the student becomes convinced that they'd have more chance of getting hit by lightning, and therefore, doesn't put much importance on learning it well. Perfunctory training at any point - training for training's sake - must be avoided unless the goal is to shout wolf so often we want our students to ignore our instruction. This is another potentially fatal flaw in modern training that is so far removed from the scene of the accident that it never gets blamed. Thanks for pointing that out.

If they do it by themselves, it's their business. As Clint said, "A man's gotta know his limits." How the hell can he discover them when every silly bugger with a mouth thinks his opinion is worth broadcasting on national TV? Hear, hear. Good question turboplanner. The problem is that it would be quite feasible to disagree with the rules and disregard them without suffering any real consequences at present. The solution, therefore, is to regard rules as Douglas "Tin Legs" Bader implied with these words... "Rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of wise men." If people want to ignore them and they get away with it, then good luck to them. At this point, some bleeding heart will bleat something like, "Won't anyone think of the children?" In fact we should think of the children's best interests and let them accept some responsibility for their own safety while they're young and can still bounce. The older they are the harder they fall... I would have put it much further down the list than second best.... Music to my ears M61. You're right, it won't work with the current system, and we haven't been able to change that system for the better except on the odd occasion. The reason we've failed before is because we seriously underestimated the cunning of bureaucrats, and all the other parasites feeding off the productive in society. These people aren't like us, they're much smarter, and less inclined to play by any form of "the rules" because they're above them.