I'm sorry if that's what you thought I was doing Tester 07, I thought I'd got that out of my system a long time ago and certainly didn't intend to make the points you think I am.
My points:
(1) What John says about a complete stalling test grid is a valid description of good practice; but, in my experience a lot of the light aircraft industry doesn't do it that way - often the minimum needed to show standard compliance is all that's done, and that with a certain amount of gamesmanship.
(2) Role relation is very important and flight testers used to one type of flying may need to "buy in" a bit of role relation knowledge when testing for a different role.
(3) The test described by the OP was a standard certification stall, not a role-related test. Both are needed.
(4) There is a mismatch between civil certification standards and the way training aeroplanes are actually flown in deliberate stalling. This is compounded by flight testers in the civil industry who don't construct the sort of thorough test grid that would be normal in the military world.
To be honest, I don't think that you can really accuse my...
I absolutely agree that a competent military flight test organisation such as CEV or AČEČ will certainly make sure that any stalling assessment carried out is thorough and role-related
Of being a criticism of military (trained) TPs. My main criticism was of civil certification practice which DOES NOT necessarily apply the rigour, and particularly role-relation, that would be normal to a military-trained flight tester.
And yes, I digressed from the original question - but I'm not alone in that!
Also, for the record, most - quite possibly all - of the key decision makers in the organisations that I'm criticising are not military trained TPs or FTEs.
G