Quote:
Originally Posted by nosehair  because we are discussing stall/spin training. |
I thought we were discussing stall/spin training in order to produce safer pilots?
<<Proficiency in stalls and spins are a normal progression of the skills you mention.>>
That's under dispute. I suspect you could train a skillful pilot who had never stalled an airplane. Safe? Arguable. Knowing what a stall is does motivate the pilot to respect airspeeds.
<<Learning the physical visual visceral motions of the aircraft about all it's capable axies, and developing a control touch and emotional response that leaves you the master of the airplane.>>
"Master of the airplane" is relative. No one is ever a complete master. Stall/spin training increases proficiency in a very
artificial flight regime. There is no data to suggest that there is any transfer of this learning to other flight regimes.
<<How can you be master if your afraid?>>
You will not eliminate fear for many pilots during PPL training; you might make some of them more afraid.
<<Talk to me. How do you develop complete control authority in a fledgling pilot who is learning these skills? >>
You never develop "complete control authority" in any pilot of any level. All you can do is increase authority.
<<Do you honestly believe that we can 'talk' about upset training, and that will be sufficient?>>
Of course not, but there are diminishing returns. The quick and superficial answer to stall/spin accidents is "more spin training." I'm skeptical that works.
<<Do you honestly not see that 'bad landing practice' is benificial? >>
Didn't say that. Your argument was that landings improve due to bad landings. I see landings improving after the student does something correctly. Bad landing practice improves the ability to fix bad landings. That's a different skill from making good landings.
