spekesoftly,
There is no problem with our observations, as we are talking about aircraft from very different ages. The (lovely) dinosaurs or our youth had all sorts of interesting characteristics like lots of aileron drag, little or no washout to control spanwise stall onset and the like ... aileron was not the way to go.
Still, a bootfull of rudder increases the risk of autorotation.. I far prefer the technique of unloading the wing, unstalling, and then recovering in controlled flight. One may lose more height, but the reliability is more repeatable.
The more modern standards require the aircraft to have far more docile characteristics, including aileron control through the stall entry.. hence the old problem has largely gone to ground.
In all cases, if the instructor intends to use a normal category aircraft for such training then it is prudent to do sufficient investigation to determine if that particular S/N aircraft's characteristics are sufficiently docile for the purpose of such training.
If this is not formalised through the airworthiness system then just where this might leave everyone in the event that an individual exercise leads to a serious incident or accident remains an interesting question I suggest.
From a personal viewpoint, I think that all pilots ought to have a sound grounding in aerobatics, it is just the means which I question.
[ 28 October 2001: Message edited by: john_tullamarine ]