Originally Posted by BigEndBob
Why should an aircraft require any special technique to recover.
All aircraft should be certified to recover from a standard technique with a bit of tolerance for the inexperienced or out of practise.
I'd agree with this for purely leisure aircraft - such as a 172. However, most aircraft are built for a working life, and as such their performance characteristics are tailored to their role. Operational Pilots should fly aircraft to the limit of their performance safely, and be aware of any specific requirements.
So do you build a benign trainer that will flatter all pilots, or do you build the best aircraft for the purpose, and publish comprehensive pilot's notes?
I don't know the history of the Firefly, but I think it was built to be a military ab inito trainer. As such, it is exceedingly good at the job it was designed to do (albeit not as comfy as a Grob 115 - which is a lot softer and does have a benign spin recover).
I suppose we are getting off thread. The accident is despately sad and as a father of two I can't think of anything worse. All I can hope is that the AAIB report contains some information that will help this kind of thing not happening again.