Rich Stowell upset recovery

Doc Holliday said:
Agreed.

Given the FAA has access to professionally trained test pilots already why would they need Stowell?
Click to expand...
In the past the FAA has used contract pilots when they have a specific skill or level of experience that's useful to the job at hand. That being said, while I've heard a lot about Rich Stowell and corresponded with him regarding high AOA and spin dynamics in the past (before and after 1997) I've never heard him make this claim. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, so I'm curious to know if it actually did or is just rumor.

FWIW there is no explicit training required to be a "test pilot" in the eyes of the FAA unless it's by job description or contract posting. It is possible to be a test pilot with nothing but comprehensive experience and OJT. Maybe night likely, but possible. Some have achieved greatness, others not so much.

Nauga,
unlisted
 
nauga said:
In the past the FAA has used contract pilots when they have a specific skill or level of experience that's useful to the job at hand. That being said, while I've heard a lot about Rich Stowell and corresponded with him regarding high AOA and spin dynamics in the past (before and after 1997) I've never heard him make this claim. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, so I'm curious to know if it actually did or is just rumor.

FWIW there is no explicit training required to be a "test pilot" in the eyes of the FAA unless it's by job description or contract posting. It is possible to be a test pilot with nothing but comprehensive experience and OJT. Maybe night likely, but possible. Some have achieved greatness, others not so much.

Nauga,
unlisted
Click to expand...
When reading the job description on USAjobs when the FAA puts out a request for test pilots they ask for graduates of an accredited school (military or civilian).

And I do know when doing certification on particular airframes the manufacture will supply their flight test guys as SME and flight test. Dassault recently had an ad out for flight test pilots and again required graduating either military or civilian accredited training. I would assume perhaps a small company with limited resources may go with a self proclaimed test pilot.

Also people confuse the production test pilots with the guys that actually do the R&D.
 
did I read that the new very first or second action on all upsets including a spiral dive is Push?
 
nauga said:
In the past the FAA has used contract pilots when they have a specific skill or level of experience that's useful to the job at hand. That being said, while I've heard a lot about Rich Stowell and corresponded with him regarding high AOA and spin dynamics in the past (before and after 1997) I've never heard him make this claim. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, so I'm curious to know if it actually did or is just rumor.
Click to expand...
Perhaps notably, the linked article doesn't actually make the claim that Stowell tested the plane for the FAA:

Master CFI Rich Stowell, who has flown more than 26,000 spins in more than 160 different airplanes, tested one Tomahawk in depth. He found that its spin characteristics were unremarkable compared with other airplanes and that the airplane performed as Piper literature states it should perform. Stowell does, however, go on to question whether the spin characteristics are truly uniform across the fleet.

The National Transportation Safety Board raised the matter of Tomahawk stall-spin characteristics formally in a Safety Recommendation to the FAA in 1997 and asked that the agency conduct an investigation and test flights. The FAA did so, and it reported in 1998 that the concerns were unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
 
“Master CFI” is a made up term. The FAA doesn’t have a master CFI rating. The guys that use this pay for a club membership and in turn get a certificate designating them as such.
 
Doc Holliday said:
“Master CFI” is a made up term. The FAA doesn’t have a master CFI rating. The guys that use this pay for a club membership and in turn get a certificate designating them as such.
Click to expand...
They pay for club membership that allows them to pursue the certificate. It’s not automatic.

And considering how much effort it took me to become a Gold Seal instructor, I’m not all that impressed with the FAA’s standards, either. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
They pay for club membership that allows them to pursue the certificate. It’s not automatic.

And considering how much effort it took me to become a Gold Seal instructor, I’m not all that impressed with the FAA’s standards, either. ;)
Click to expand...

I’ll start a club. Send me $500 and I’ll designate the applicant as Most Superior Pilot that includes a certificate (signed by me) and a lapel pin.

For another $500 we’ll even do a knighting ceremony!

Everyone will be impressed!
 
nauga said:
Are you sure about that?

Nauga,
and old history
Click to expand...

Let me rephase, the pilot the most associated with the retesting of the Tomahawk spin characteristics

aviationsafetymagazine.com

Tomahawk Revisited

Piper's Tomahawk has been criticized for its stall-spin behavior. How does it compare with other spins-approved airplanes?
aviationsafetymagazine.com aviationsafetymagazine.com

www.flyingmag.com

The Piper Tomahawk: A Lot More Airplane for a Lot Less Money

Economy is one of the Tomahawk's strengths, giving prospective owners "a lot more airplane for a lot less money."
www.flyingmag.com www.flyingmag.com
 
I am always skeptical of “upset” training courses because a majority of true upsets occur in the traffic pattern and most of the rest involve maneuvering — usually operating too slow and too close to the ground for recovery.
 
Doc Holliday said:
I’ll start a club. Send me $500 and I’ll designate the applicant as Most Superior Pilot that includes a certificate (signed by me) and a lapel pin.

For another $500 we’ll even do a knighting ceremony!

Everyone will be impressed!
Click to expand...
Hold, it, if you are signing the certificates, wouldn’t you have to be the most superior pilot and everyone else just extraordinary superior pilots? Asking for a friend.
 
Tough crowd here... Titles, knighthood and all that aside - I've seen Rich speak a couple of times at forums in Oshkosh, and I have also read two of his books. He is very knowledgeable, and he is a very good teacher. I sure have learned a lot from his books and also from the upset recovery class he designed at in Santa Paula (though I did not fly with him there, but with Mark King CP Aviation who is also very good).
 
Martin Pauly said:
Tough crowd here... Titles, knighthood and all that aside - I've seen Rich speak a couple of times at forums in Oshkosh, and I have also read two of his books. He is very knowledgeable, and he is a very good teacher. I sure have learned a lot from his books and also from the upset recovery class he designed at in Santa Paula (though I did not fly with him there, but with Mark King CP Aviation who is also very good).
Click to expand...
Tough crowd aside, what did walk away from this class that changed how you were operating the aircraft or your ADM?

Like 3 most important points?
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
I am always skeptical of “upset” training courses because a majority of true upsets occur in the traffic pattern and most of the rest involve maneuvering — usually operating too slow and too close to the ground for recovery.
Click to expand...
A lot of the value comes from understanding the onset of a stall/spin and avoiding ever getting into one. It's a very different experience from the PP power on/power off stall practice.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
did I read that the new very first or second action on all upsets including a spiral dive is Push?
Click to expand...
Maybe. I didn’t read the link here but what I have read and heard about it is that you have to unload the wing first. So it wouldn’t surprise me that the word push was used.
 
Hang 4 said:
A lot of the value comes from understanding the onset of a stall/spin and avoiding ever getting into one. It's a very different experience from the PP power on/power off stall practice.
Click to expand...
If all the "practice" is only devoted to test demonstration stalls, then I agree more training is needed. But don't instructors do a lot more than that, thus negating the need for post-certification instruction in stall recovery? Don't they start by stalling from slow flight, emphasizing how a simple reduction in back pressure breaks the stall? Then explaining how power setting affects the stick position at the point of stall? And how slips and skids determine which wing stalls first? Only after all that, don't they put it all together and apply it to standard scenarios contrived for FAA certification purposes? I hope so.
 
dtuuri said:
But don't instructors do a lot more than that, thus negating the need for post-certification instruction in stall recovery?
Click to expand...
Based on what I see, that would be a resounding “no.” Probably just enough stall training to pass a checkride but nowhere near enough for true proficiency.
 
I've got a few hours in my logbook with Rich, when he was still instructing at CP Aviation in Santa Paula. He gave me my spin training endorsement (for future use if I get my CFI; I'd redo the training if I actually do go for CFI). Even though I had previously been through EMT training at Sunrise Aviation at SNA a few years prior, Rich's instruction really gave me true confidence in spin recovery that I didn't really have even after EMT training. He was quickly able to identify where I was having a sightline issue and coach me through that in a single, quite memorable, lesson.

Rich was also my sister's, Rochelle Oslick, instructor when she first learned aerobatics at CP in the 80's. She is now one of the main EMT/tailwheel/spin instructors at CP, along side Mark King. The Upset Recovery Training (aka Emergency Maneuvers Training) course he originally developed attracts a global clientele to CP.
 
Clip4 said:
what did walk away from this class that changed how you were operating the aircraft or your ADM?
Click to expand...
I did a write-up about it on BeechTalk back in 2020 when I did the training.

BeechTalk - Login

A Beechcraft (Raytheon) Owners & Pilots Group providing discussion forums for all Beech aircraft. Includes the Bonanza, Baron, King Air, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
www.beechtalk.com www.beechtalk.com

I’m flying on a perfectly clear day, but where I normally see the horizon, there’s just the ground. Everywhere. And rotating rapidly. It feels like the nose of the Citabria I’m sitting in is pointing straight down. Yes, I am in a spin.

How did I end up here? I am taking the Emergency Maneuver Training (EMT) class offered by CP Aviation in Santa Paula, CA. Mark King, a Master CFI specializing in aerobatics, tailwheel and EMT training, posted on BeechTalk back in July that he was looking for a candidate to take this two-day class in return for writing about it, so as to spread the word and dispel some of the myths around stalls and spins. That candidate ended up being me. It would be quite a change from my normal, straight-and-level cross country flying routine.

I arrived at the Santa Paula airport on a Saturday morning, the last day of August 2019. Along with Julia, a commercial pilot from California working on becoming a flight instructor, we settle into the small classroom at CP Aviation. Mark explains what we are going to see over the next two days, and that is two ground school sessions and two flights each day.

We talk about the Citabria a bit, an airplane in which rudder control and coordination of rudder and aileron is a lot more important than in most of the training fleet, and certainly more than in my Bonanza. On the first flight we’ll do some Dutch rolls, and then review slow flight – flight at a speed where any further increase of the angle of attack or any reduction of engine power will lead to an immediate stall. This is followed by a series of stalls – power on, power off, accelerated stalls (in a turn), and “rudder stalls” (a.k.a. “falling leaf”, something I had not done before.

I remember Dutch rolls from my days of flying gliders decades ago, but less so from flying airplanes. My first attempt seems to keep the nose aimed alright at a point in front of us, but Mark says to look out along the left wingtip during the exercise – and instead of just moving up and down, I see it swivel forward and backward – not well coordinated. With a little practice, I learn just how much rudder is needed along with the aileron input – less going left, more going right because we are still in a climb (P-factor).

We move on to slow flight and stalls, which I feel pretty comfortable with. I’ve practiced those recently back home in Iowa with Matt Gunderson, the instructor helping me get ready for my commercial certificate. Mark focuses on just the use of the elevator, to control angle of attack. Out in the world of flight training and checkrides, he says, we tend to mask the stall with some sort of a procedure, involving flaps, power, landing gear and what not. Today we are simply using the elevator to enter a stall and to recover from it. It works beautifully.

Then we move on to the “falling leaf” exercise. For that, Mark controls elevator (he stalls the airplane) and aileron (he keeps it neutral), and leaves me with just the rudder. To “help” me, he tells me to grab the metal tubes of the fuselage in front of me with both hands – so I don’t have a hand on the stick anymore – I’m only using my feet. As the stall begins, one of the wings will drop; I apply full opposite rudder to straighten things up, and while that works, the bank angle reached in the meantime can be substantial – I would estimate 60 degrees or so. And once the wings are level, we are still in a stall, so a wing drops again – sometimes, the left one, sometimes the right one. It’s a pretty dynamic game, there’s lots of rolling, but it’s always recoverable with just the rudder, so it’s under control.

The real eye-opener for me was the following variation of this exercise. Instead of reacting to a wing dropping, Mark told me to proactively (i.e. before a wing shows any signs of dropping) alternate between full left and full right rudder, at the pace of running. Left, right, left, right, left right, etc. I had never done this before, and had no idea what to expect. To my surprise, when Mark again stalled the aircraft and I turned the rudder pedals into a stairmaster, the result was a lot more stable than before. Counter-intuitive, maybe, because how could a random application of left-right-left-right – regardless of how the airplane is moving – lead to more stability than the targeted use of rudder to counteract actual aircraft movement? The coupling between yaw and roll contributes to a spin, and the rapid movement of the rudder from stop to stop was preventing the yaw and the roll from coupling – thus leading to lower bank angles than before.

Mark demonstrated a spin at the end of the first flight, but it was really the second flight where we practiced spins a lot – both entering them and recovering from them. This was actually a lot of fun. Mark briefed us thoroughly on it in the classroom before the flight. We enter the spin with the engine idle, at 60 mph, by applying full rudder and pulling back on the elevator. The yaw (initiated by the rudder) causes one wing to drop (yaw-roll coupling), and the lower, now more slowly moving wing has a higher localized angle of attack. Pulling back on the elevator stalls that wing first. The airplane enters an uncoordinated stall.

The recovery starts with full opposite rudder, which breaks the yaw-roll coupling. We are still in a stall, but it is no longer an uncoordinated stall – it is now a coordinated stall. From that we recover just like we practiced in the prior flight: by reducing the angle of attack, i.e. by moving the stick forward. We did that several times on the second flight, and it worked like clockwork. The Citabria accelerated from our entry speed of 60 mph to around 100 mph during this exercise, so we gently pull the nose up and regain some of the ca. 500 feet we lost in one spin rotation.

Mark further challenged us by making us try to exit the spin on the same heading we were when we entered. Sounds difficult, but it turns out that to stabilize the aircraft heading after one rotation (360 degrees of turn), one simply needs to start the recovery (opposite rudder) 270 degrees into the turn. For two full rotations (720 degrees of turn), the recovery starts 540 degrees (i.e. 180 from the entry heading), because by now things are moving a little faster and we need more of a head-start to recover. The hardest part for me is orienting myself, since the landmarks I would usually use to determine degrees of turn – like a point on the horizon – are not visible during the spin. One has to look for reference points much closer, below the aircraft.

That was day one. Now look forward to tomorrow.


(Splitting up in two messages due to the message size limitation on PoA)
 
Day 2 Summary

On the second day, we are flying twice more – again with a ground school portion before each flight. I would summarize the objective of the first flight today by saying it demonstrates how variations of the (already impressive) “normal” spins we practiced yesterday can quickly become more violent, and take longer to recover from – e.g. by applying power or aileron. The second flight today, the last one of the EMT program for me, will put what we have learned into perspective for most “normal” pilots – with the understanding that unfortunate accidents like spins on the base-to-final turn are not intentional spins, but can result somewhat predictably from poor airmanship – or even from wake turbulence. We’ll produce scenarios which are a little closer to those real-life situations before entering a spin on this last flight.

For the first flight today, we are ditching the Citabria and moving to the Decathlon, a full aerobatic airplane. Mark explains the use of the parachute which we’ll wear for today’s first flight – just in case. The Decathlon has a more powerful engine; we quickly gain altitude, and Mark performs a seatbelt test, which consists of a few seconds of inverted straight and level flight, to make sure everything is secure in the cockpit.

After a normal spin, just like the ones we did the day before, we go through a number of variations of yesterday’s program, showing how deviations from the recovery procedure we learned yesterday – P.A.R.E., the acronym for the sequence of power idle, aileron neutral, rudder full opposite, elevator forward – can turn things from bad to worse. If the textbook spin entry and recovery we practiced yesterday get your heartbeat up, I can assure you these variations will get really your full attention. Applying power (or merely leaving it in during the recovery if it wasn’t idle to begin with), or use of the aileron as we get into the spin or try to stop it will make the spin rotation even faster, or make the spin either steeper (bad) or flatter (really bad). And a premature forward motion of the stick, before opposite rudder, will get your attention as well. Mark also demonstrated what might be the result from a wake turbulence encounter; amazingly, the same recovery technique we have practiced works here as well. These are the only spins where Mark controlled the spin entry, by the way, while the recovery was flown by me, the student. All other spins (the “normal” ones) we did this weekend had me in control for both entry and recovery.

My main take-away from this flight is two things: (1) the importance of applying P.A.R.E.to the letter if minimizing altitude loss is important, and (2) even if things get a bit violent, P.A.R.E. will eventually produce the desired result (i.e. end the spin). This second part felt rather comforting to me – knowing that there is a one-size-fits-all recipe to recover, albeit with a lot more altitude loss. Not something I wish for anybody to experience on that famous base-to-final turn, for sure.

In addition, I am beginning to recognize that after some training, my response to the spin is more and more coming from muscle memory, not from conscious thinking. I figure that’s a good thing – my brain is being conditioned to recognize what a spin looks like and to respond in a way that makes a favorable outcome more likely. My challenge from here on will be to seek recurrent training in an appropriate aircraft (not my Bonanza) to remain well prepared.

For the final flight of the Program, we get back into the Citabria. It won’t be as strenuous on the airframe, nor on me (yes, I had to ask Mark to fly straight and level for a few minutes towards the end of the prior flight, to avoid filling the barf bag I had on me). But it put what I saw so far into the context of, shall we say, everyday flying. The dreaded skidding turn from base to final is probably the best example to explain what I mean by this: The pilot recognizes (s)he will overshoot the extended centerline during the turn, and thus applies rudder into the turn (maybe from fear of banking too much so close to the ground). That rudder input – because of the bank – will as a side effect lower the nose, which the pilot compensates by pulling back on the elevator, thereby increasing the angle of attack. We also now have the outer wing going faster than the inside wing, so the outer wing produces more lift which raises it more – and the pilot may try to compensate that with aileron opposite to the direction of the turn, to reduce the bank. Probably without any realization by the pilot, we now have the perfect storm for a really bad spin here: yaw (from the rudder input into the spin), high angle of attack from pulling the elevator, and – to make it even worse – aileron opposite to the turn direction. All the ingredients required for a violent spin. It seems crystal clear to me now, and I just wish the many accident pilots who fell victim of this spin recipe could have had the same understanding of these things.

This last flight also demonstrated a spiral as another example of an unfortunately somewhat frequent real-life scenario with real potential of causing bad accidents. Remember the video named “178 seconds to live”? Here is how it unfolds: airplane starts to bank slightly, maybe while in a cloud or on a dark, moonless night. Pilot notices a slight loss of altitude and responds by pulling back on the elevator, which in turn intensifies the turn and resulting altitude loss. The airplane doesn’t stall, but it increases speed and is subjected to higher and higher bank angles and load factors. The correct response – push the stick forward to unload the wings, before leveling the wings – seems counter-intuitive because of the ever-increasing sink rate. And thus, many a pilot has overstressed the aircraft in the process of dealing with a spiral, maybe completely unaware of the bank angle, and either ripped off a wing in flight – Doug Rozendaal famously calls the stick the “wing removal lever” – or spiraled a perfectly good airplane into the ground. Spirals and spins have little in common, save for their potentially deadly outcome. While a spiral lacks a stall, has increasing g force and increasing airspeed along with increasing noise, a spin requires a stall, is a 1-g maneuver, and occurs at a relatively low airspeed (after all, we are in a stall).

As I reflect on the two days behind me, I try to identify the one big take-away among the many things I learned and experienced. I think it is a new-found respect for the rudder, which is almost always misunderstood by beginner pilots who think its purpose is to turn the airplane. Far from it. In fact, its purpose is almost the opposite – to prevent adverse yaw when applying ailerons. It’s the elevator which controls all the heavy lifting (pun intended) needed for a turn, while the use of the rudder provides the opportunity to enter (remember the yaw-roll coupling?), recover from, or (better yet) prevent a spin.

All in all, the EMT training was very rewarding. With around 2,000 hours in my logbook, I consider myself an experienced pilot in terms of weather, cross-country flight planning, instrument flying and dealing with ATC – but not in terms of good stick-and-rudder skills; I simply don’t need (and thus don’t practice) them in 95% of my Bonanza flying time. In that way, the EMT class was a great complement for my normal flying, and I will make it a goal to seek opportunities to do more of that. In addition to having learned things that may save my life one day, it was also a lot of fun.

Mark, thank you for giving me this opportunity.

 
Clip4 said:
I am always skeptical of “upset” training courses because a majority of true upsets occur in the traffic pattern and most of the rest involve maneuvering — usually operating too slow and too close to the ground for recovery.
Click to expand...
Those of this mentality fail to appreciate that the pilots drilling holes in the ground due to LOC are not generally the ones who are highly current, comfortable, and competent with upsets and spins. Also, learning new concepts and skills just makes you a better pilot...for those who care about that sort of thing.
 
luvflyin said:
Maybe. I didn’t read the link here but what I have read and heard about it is that you have to unload the wing first. So it wouldn’t surprise me that the word push was used.
Click to expand...
Spiral dive.
Push as in relaxing the back pressure a lot, to lessen the G load, allows the aircraft to roll back to level easier/faster.
Power off, unload, roll level and pull out from the dive, was my take away from Rich.
 
dtuuri said:
If all the "practice" is only devoted to test demonstration stalls, then I agree more training is needed. But don't instructors do a lot more than that, thus negating the need for post-certification instruction in stall recovery? Don't they start by stalling from slow flight, emphasizing how a simple reduction in back pressure breaks the stall? Then explaining how power setting affects the stick position at the point of stall? And how slips and skids determine which wing stalls first? Only after all that, don't they put it all together and apply it to standard scenarios contrived for FAA certification purposes? I hope so.
Click to expand...
I did upset recovery training while getting my PP. I can tell with certainty the stuff I did in regular PP in no way prepared me for getting on the edge of the envelope like the UR training. What gets missed is how quickly things go pear shaped and it makes you much better at not getting near the edges.
 
RoscoeT said:
Those of this mentality fail to appreciate that the pilots drilling holes in the ground due to LOC are not generally the ones who are highly current, comfortable, and competent with upsets and spins. Also, learning new concepts and skills just makes you a better pilot...for those who care about that sort of thing
Click to expand...

What makes you believe people who are involved in stall spin accidents aren’t highly current? I have seen the immediate after math of 3 fatal stall/spin accidents - the fireball from 2. All the pilots highly current in normal operations in my view. 2 probably weren’t current with emergency procedures. 1 was a commercial pilot known to be a hotdog in the pattern.

What caused the accidents was poor ADM, and poor situational awareness, not poor recovery technique.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
What makes you believe people who are involved in stall spin accidents aren’t highly current?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're referring to by "highly current" and "current in normal operations". I'm talking about pilots who are very current and comfortable with spins of all types. Pilots with high skill/comfort level with spins are NOT the ones who normally drill in via accidental LOC unless they're doing some really boneheaded low-level aerobatics. The boneheads aren't usually the ones who seek advanced spin/upset training anyway, so we're not really talking about them.

I strongly disagree with your position that this type of training is pointless because of the altitudes involved. You don't seem to connect the fact that those who take it upon themselves to gain advanced skill, awareness, and experience are not the ones who end up flying fearfully, or skid turns because they're scared of bank angle, or put the airplane in a risky config because they don't know how close they are to the limit. Skill IS prevention. The crowd that advocates stall avoidance training is all that matters just doesn't get this.
 
RoscoeT said:
or put the airplane in a risky config because they don't know how close they are to the limit.
Click to expand...
I’d add that a stall/upset proficient pilot also knows that the limit is substantially closer to the ground than is generally believed, and that stalls/upsets at pattern altitude are still often recoverable with room to spare.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’d add that a stall/upset proficient pilot also knows that the limit is substantially closer to the ground than is generally believed, and that stalls/upsets at pattern altitude are still often recoverable with room to spare.
Click to expand...
Very true. You can do a one turn spin in a J-3 and recover in about 300' of altitude loss...not that this simulates a realistic LOC scenario, but the "pattern altitude is a death sentence" crowd would be surprised in some cases.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeT said:
Very true. You can do a one turn spin in a J-3 and recover in about 300' of altitude loss...not that this simulates a realistic LOC scenario, but the "pattern altitude is a death sentence" crowd would be surprised in some cases.
Click to expand...
And a realistic LOC scenario shouldn’t result in a one turn spin, either.
 
RoscoeT said:
Very true. You can do a one turn spin in a J-3 and recover in 350' of altitude loss...not that this simulates a realistic LOC scenario, but the "pattern altitude is a death sentence" crowd would be surprised in some cases.
Click to expand...
And in other cases it would be unrecoverable, which (to me) says that you need to train for the airplane and situations you are more likely to encounter, not just for an airplane that's good for demonstration purposes with simplified scenarios.

Nauga,
who would rather depart the pattern than depart IN the pattern
 
The traffic pattern is not the only place stall-spins and upsets occur. Those of us who fly in the mountains know there can be risk of unpredicted mountain wave activity. Flying in LA, I also need to be very aware of wake turbulence from the big jets crossing above me just flying around under the various Class B and C shelves.
 
nauga said:
And in other cases it would be unrecoverable, which (to me) says that you need to train for the airplane and situations you are more likely to encounter, not just for an airplane that's good for demonstration purposes with simplified scenarios.
Click to expand...

Crawl - Walk - Run is a proven training method. Start with a benign trainer to learn the concepts, then move to more challenging aircraft and situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top