This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has mentioned,
there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the thick of
things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the bleachers this
time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I see
[keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' different, but
not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix:
1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do
stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall
training every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on the
C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to
max torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions from
many hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb.. a
really interesting experience compared to the same thing in a single
[push, power, recover].
2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step in
getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo
spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember
the last time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been
many years.
3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi training
curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the engine
[I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in the
breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one engine
in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your ride
approval to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the last time
I heard of a twin engine training accident due to single engine ops [in
Canada].
4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and
slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before
being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots in training
then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in simulators which
duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once you get your
Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to
stall training for the rest of your flying career, your
mistaken.
I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall
testing these planes, is saying these planes need to be "deep
stalled". However, approach to stall and recovery at the first sign of
stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/testing of a new airframe.
Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope,
this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some point] get to that
flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic
like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and vests they
needed].
The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft
are not safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at
the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck
they call it a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly,
[Cruise at 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously
as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM..
there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there that fly well in
all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate
was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D program to
clean these issues up were not pushed as far as they
maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a better
"jumping off point" to tame the stalls of their individual aircraft.
Couple this with the small variances plane to plane due to building
tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/
potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's not 'tameable' or
correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.
I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see it as
my duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves before I
convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself in the
testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old daughter
[both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ me in the
425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my family to
enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if I
didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker corners of
the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an
'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss
of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride
down to 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm
pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for the
ride.. that's the stuff of nightmares..<shutter>]
In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals for a
'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at
both ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least
tested to the stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not
intentionally to spin it but at least know where it stalls and how it
recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to ensure there
is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these planes
are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there to do
for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?
If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your plane
but just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way you
see fit.
I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might even go
as far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing it
w/ a personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple
times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been
'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ]
Jarrett Johnson
235/320 55% [and currently holding]
I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to this
controversy, but here are a couple of observations:
Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of
low-altitude engine-out proficiency. That requirement was
dropped and the overall safety improved. Years ago, spin
demonstrations were required and then dropped - safety improved.
Another observation: All that have sided with stall training
have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the center). I
doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered
ball. I haven't stalled my ES.
Gary Casey
I
have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls
altogether in my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin
accident information, I just don't think it's worth the risk. On
take-off, I stay in ground effect for the half second it takes to
make it into the green after wheels up; on landing, I approach well
above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed bleed off
only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I don't
even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many variables in a
home built airplane with no precise envelope, a header tank that is
PROBABLY where I think it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if
the gauge is stuck; possible extra wait in the tail area (water
retention after heavy
rain).