Well, this is an interesting debate!
I'm not a TP but I am and end user of aeroplanes; many different types of aeroplanes. It seems to me that we are having a heated agreement here!
I always thought that our TP colleagues have two very different jobs to perform; sometimes simultaneously, sometimes separately. Fist, how does this machine behave? Second question, is the behavior of this machine fit for its intended purpose?
I'm not, as I said a TP but, I am a fighter pilot, FI, airline captain (depending on the day of the week!) and so, while I have no relevant expertise to contribute to the first part of the TP's job I do believe that my experience is relevant to the second question; is the machine fit for purpose!
Surely, the testing of a new design is conducted from these two differing points of view? As a user I am not particularly interested in the bare bones analysis of a new machine (although I certainly acknowledge the importance of investigating and defining that). Rather, I am much more interested in learning if the new machine will do the job I want to use it for!
Pure flight testing and role related testing should go hand in hand!
With that in mind why would a QFI want to teach a "gentle and very easy flight test approach" to the stall if that is not how it might present itself in normal flight operations? We are not teaching pilots with just 12 hours in their logbooks to fly flight test profiles, we are teaching students to deal with situations they might encounter in normal flight operations!
In my experience a student pilot can cope with all sorts of new and potentially frightening situations if he is properly briefed and prepared for the event; after all, every time we take off I am presenting him with new and potentially frightening experiences! QFIs teach pilots to be prepared for situations which might happen in the real world of flying day to day; not how to repeat flight test techniques which demand deep understanding and very precise and highly skilled flying to create.
I have never had a student who was unduly concerned about stalling because I have always explained what to expect and and made sure that he understood what we were doing before starting the starting the exercise.
There are, in my mind three separate questions...
How does this aeroplane behave?
Is its behavior suitable for its intended task?
How can I best use this machine to teach a student about flying?
Question 1 is purely for TPs; question 3 is purely for QFIs but, crucially, question 2 has to be answered by both together!
I think I have just agreed with JF. Ghengis, I'm sure that you are absolutely right when you say that there are companies who do not thoroughly investigate the behavior of their products but, aren't you saying the same thing as John? TPs need to find out what a new machine does, then asses if it is suitable for the intended purpose? QFIs need to teach students to anticipate and cope with situations they may find in real life day to day flying and, to do this effectively they need to have machines suitable to that purpose.
It is not appropriate for a QFI to teach a new student how to fly a TP investigative technique. We need to teach and fully explain how aeroplanes behave and how to operate them in normal service .
Happy landings to all!!
3 point