I knew when I posted my opinions on stall/spin training I would get a
variety of interesting responses from good pilots with experience and
the best intentions. Thanks to those who worry for the safety of me and
my future pax. Your advice is heeded. This debate has gone on for a long
time elsewhere; it is not my original idea.

I would like to reassure those who think I am a total idiot that I have
never objected to training to recognize the approach to a stall and deal
with it. What I object to is the thesis that, to be a safe pilot, you
need to explore the deep stall regime of "any airplane you fly" (as one
put it), potentially leading to spins in airplanes that should not be
spun. I will continue to maintain that this "test pilot bravado" is more
dangerous than knowing the stall regime under various conditions,
recognizing impending stalls, and avoiding stall conditions at all
costs.

A pilot who has convinced himself that his extensive stall/spin training
protects him from stall/spin accidents at low altitudes is just kidding
himself. Perhaps a pilot who relies only on an AOA, basic skills, and
known numbers is dangerous in other ways. As I said initially, I believe
attitude kills pilots, and is an equal opportunity killer. One claim is
that a pilot familiar with all the stall/spin characteristics of his
airplane is more likely to be able to avoid stalls in the first place. I
think this is where the rubber meets the road on this issue: what kind
of training do you need to avoid stalls in the first place? Of course
"you can stall at any airspeed", but that doesn't mean you WILL.

There was one response warning that you can get stalled in a number of
situations that the writer implied are out of a pilot's control. This
was an interesting e-mail. I don't see ANY of those things as totally
out of one's control. Leaving aside the loading, fires, dirty wings,
etc., we are talking about environmental variables: winds, altitude
changes, temperature changes, ice, etc., as well as things like "near
misses". My "conservative flying" response would say those things are
all avoidable or predictable within a range which allows you to avoid
stall conditions almost all the time. I suppose if you are flying the
SR-71 Blackbird on the edge of stall at the edge of space, you could
argue this point. My pathetic 800 hours in a Bonanza is not a lot of
time, but I have never encountered environmentally-induced stall
warnings yet. To train for hypothetical and extreme circumstances (some
related to pilot stupidity) which occur once in millions flight hours
does not represent a reasonable argument.

Finally, I believe the response to an impending stall in any airplane is
essentially the same. Everyone agrees that the difficult thing for
pilots to tuck away in their cerebral emergency kit is the
counter-intuitive push forward on the controls. If you can't get over
this, you are not going to do well in any near stall situation, and are
going to end up in a total stall and likely a spin. So, isn't the most
important thing to practice the approach to the stall and pushing
forward to avoid/break it? Why do I need to know what the full stall
(let alone the spin) characteristics of EVERY airplane I fly are? I just
need to be able avoid it, and if not, to recognize it way ahead of time
and do the right thing.

So, again, in my Lancair, I want a qualified test pilot to do all that
test pilot "right stuff", develop a full set of stall numbers for me,
then take me up and show me what the impending stall feels like, how the
AOA is calibrated, and any adverse characteristics he has discovered. My
"conservative flying" use of this is going to include a safety factor
for worst case conditions. I will not tighten turns beyond my pre-stall
margin to make a runway. The extraneous environmental conditions I will
predict and avoid. If I encounter them anyway, I will have done so with
a significant margin of safety. As a last resort, I will be able to
recognize the impending stall early (helped by the AOA), level the
wings, and push the stick forward with power. At the other end of the
scale will be those who are comfortable with their stall/spin
proficiency training, and have the confidence that they can handle any
stall/spin situation. Good luck to both of us!

Brian Barbata

PS: EVERYONE gets stall training, and, yes, I do get signed off by an
instructor biennially. I'm not aware of anything in FAA regs requiring
deep stalls and/or spin development. I believe the objective of the
proficiency exercise is only to demonstrate recognition of an impending
stall, and the appropriate response. Dealing with stalls in all flight
conditions and configurations, and dealing with the potentially negative
results is clearly beyond what the FAA thinks is required of a safe
pilot.