That's a WHOLE other "cowpie".... don't get me started. (biting tongue)
But I TOTALLY agree!

Of course not.......it is always easier to rant about the gov't in general.
As far as 'minimal altitude loss' - AOA is the answer once again. Gives you the best recovery performance with minimal altitude loss. Hummm.....
35 AOA brothers! (....if you aren't max performing, you might as well be flying an F-4 (the one is for you UAL!))

USMCFLYR

Also on the bust category is not setting up the stall properly - this ranges from Private to ATP PTS. Lemme get this straight... if I don't set up the stall properly- the one I'm never going to let the aircraft get into to begin with - you're going to give me the pink slip?

The training scenarios are flawed. In both AF and Colgan there existed altitude that could be lost - traded - for a flyable wing.

I added a G-IV type in August and the practice was the same.... We'll you lost 50 feet on that recovery....let's see if we can get that down a bit. Really? We're at 10,000 feet!

I was taught to fly by an old timer Army Air Corps pilot. His stall training was right out of primary flight training circa 1942. Steep fast and scary for a newbie pilot but he pounded it in and stalls from any attitude at any power setting and any airspeed were his main focus, he told story of buddies lost making "button hook" turns from base to final in T-6's and such and stressed that none of his "kids" were ever going to die from a stall at low altitude. Before I soloed I was able to do a three turn spin and recover to a point. I'd done half snap rolls to inverted, accelerated stalls from a 60 deg bank to a full break,so on and so forth.

Several years later I was told by a modern style instructor that my stall entries and recoveries were dangerous. The first time I ever witnessed a transport style entry and recovery I was thinking this is a great instrument scan exercise but it's got nothing to do with an actual aerodynamic stall series.

Later when I started flying aerobatics I never found myself in question as to how to get out of a stalled attitude it was simply reflexive.

We'd all be doing ourselves a great service if we went back to Army Air Corp style stall training circa 1941.

The PTS is a guide line of the minimum performance and proficiency required from a student to be proficient for the rating he or she is seeking to attain. There is nothing in the FAR's that says you can't give your students some extra deeper levels of training. I don't instruct much anymore but when I did all of my students got some "extra" non required training on things like stalls and engine failures, fires ETC. The stuff that will kill you.

AirHoss, you and STDeviation's post are so on the mark, it brings me to near tears. I hope that both of you are young enough that you pass this philosophy to many, many newbies. However, I fear that many will look upon you as doddering old fools and, therefore, should be merely tolerated. But then again, there was that old Air Corp instructor that YOU never forgot when you were a young pup?

Yes sir, sure did. I was simply relating my experience, as well as others. From 2000 till 2010, at two separate companies, the "training" was the same. Interestingly enough, the overall training styles at those two companies were different. The first from 2000-2005 was AQP and very big picture. The most recent is just finally staring to transition to AQP. Last year when I took a PC was the FIRST time that there was new stall scenarios given. They also went from a graded item to simply traning. That was in 2010, the same year that's dated on the document of the link you provided.

Good point. The oversight/regulatory agency that signs off on, approves, and observes these training programs has to share the accountability with the airlines themselves. When the POI or the feds sit in on training session, PC, type ride, whatever, they can't stick they're head in the sand and say they didn't know what was going on.

See above. Enough accountability to go around.

EXACTLY what I was getting at. The pure stupidity of having the maneuver graded on how you got into it in the first place. Almost everything you do on a standard PC you have the potential to see on a line flight. EXCEPT purposely entering a stall and doing a steep turn. Seriously, I'm going to go out a do a steep turn? That somehow is a measure of a pilot's ability to control an aircraft and be a safe pilot?

That's about all is. NOTHING more than a scan exercise. With maybe some slow flight practice thrown in there before the break.

I know that my training now is different than before, but having just come from a recent recurrent I was reminded about how mild some of the stall recoveries and unusual attitudes during this training. I like the fact that you mention aerobatic training Hoss because I feel that some basic level of aerobatic training ins highly advantageous. I just feel very comofrtable seeing something no more than 30 degs nose high and within 45 deg AOB (which I believe were the limits the sim instructor gave us for training the unusual attitudes)

I'm new to the civvie world of initial/recurrent training and this stall series/steep turns stuff as part of the checkride - but in my mind it was all part of what we called basic airwork before. Can you make the aircraft do want you want it to do? I'm certainly no fan of the way the stalls are portrayed/graded/handled and I look forward to some more realistic training/checking standards in the future - stuff that will really make a difference.

USMCFLYR

Understand your point. But flying a V1 cut, a single approach especially if it's a non-precision dive and drive style, single engine go around, wind shear recovery, etc is a pretty good display of making an aircraft do what a pilot wants it to do.

:D
Hey! I was impressed with the level of training that I did in both my initial and first recurrent (to include the 50 RVR taxi - great visuals (or lack thereof)
There was more going on at one time in the SimuFlite sim than I ever gave at one time in our previous sims. Enough so that I might not even called the items listed above 'basic' airowrk but maybe even more advanced (or at elast challenging) airwork.

USMCFLYR

AOA vs Airspeed
 

KC10:

I think in the big-jet world (mil and civilian), it is stressed more as a 'lack of airspeed' issue.

But one of the finest aspects of training in the T-38, I think, is the contrast between "high-speed stall" and "low-speed stability demo." (I'm guessing you did these, back in the day, unless you are a post single-track UPT guy).

In the High-speed stall, we go into a level turn at 350-400 kts....and pull until the jet says "I've had enough." It starts rocking and rolling, and is difficult---but not impossible---to control. To recover? Pull just a little less....NOT "Don't Pull At All."

The stab-demo is a 60-degrees nose-up climb until 175 kts. Then, you bunt (unload to 0.5 to 0.0 g) and let the nose fall. Usually see about 80-100 kts as the nose hits the horizon. This is WELL below 1-g level flight speed. However, the jet has no buffet or stall---you just can't ask the wing for more than about 0.5 g. Stay less than that, and you can still maneuver. (Just can't hold level flight).

Both maneuvers teach that stall isn't about airspeed...it's how how hard you are pulling on the stick/wheel. And NONE of the stalls are treated as precision-altitude-control maneuvers.

Plus-1 on the "everyone should learn to fly aerobatics" bandwagon!