I guess we have said most of this on the 5,000 other jack stall threads
but I think the arguement is always worth going over.
One consistent position is those who believe an aircraft that suffers jack stall should not be certified.
The second is that jack stall is a poor design that can be compensated for by handling skills, knowledge and training in the same way teetering heads, LTE, and critical wind azimuths, etc, can be avoided. The big issue with this position is training and knowledge!!
The consistency with which these relatively well known "flaws" kill is an indictment on our training as much as it is the aircraft we fly. In modern error management the first principle is to engineer the problem out of the system so we dont have to train and prepare for it - and that is the position adopted by Nick and the others who contend the aircraft should not be certified.
Those adhering to the second position hold that the design flaw is too expensive to retrofit versus the ease with which training and knowledge can be used to overcome it. Each of us will change between these two positions (design out problem V train to avoid it) based on our own subjective assesment of the risks V training V design cost ratios.
Personally, I think jack stall is easy to train and avoid, but should not be tolerated in new design aircraft. The flaw in my arguement is of course training! And given that the opening post of these threads has inevitably been by pilots asking for more information on the phenomena - perhaps my position has been undermined.
The question then is - what is so wrong with our endorsement or type rating training system that pilots have to ask about such basic type limitations on pprune rather than seek the answers from their instructor? Should these "instructor limitations" be designed out of our system first?????