Yes, let's indeed not confuse stall with approach to stall. Here is an example of such confusion:
Originally Posted by s bakmeijer
and the approach to stall wasnt what i meant though,..
the part i meant was where you were past stick shaker and didnt correct accordingly... point where stick pusher kicked in.
If you have a stick pusher on your airplane, then you are doing approach-to-stall recovery, because the pusher is there to stop you stalling the airplane, either because somebody didn't like what they saw in the wind tunnel, or somebody else decided there wasn't enough data about it.
Originally Posted by guiones
Do not mistake the procedure with approach to stall, this "new" procedure is a remainder of the stall recovery, .....
There is an FOT from Airbus out after extensive Flight and Sim Tests
You think people have been going out doing stalls in Airbuses to see what happens?
The aerodynamic characteristics of a modern commercial jet are determined in wind tunnels, mostly for certification purposes. The wind tunnel work determines how the wing behaves, not the whole airplane. It determines at what point lift drops off sharply, and so forth. There is a lot of data, but there is by no means everything. The point of "stall" is not necessarily defined as being where the lift drops off sharply; it is more often defined by a degree of buffet (I refer to the regs).
"Sim tests" cannot help anyone with stalls. Simulators are only veridical at most up to the point of defined-stall (which may be at lower AoA than lift-break). So anything you can do in a sim is an approach-to-stall procedure.
As far as I know, this is a result of the recommendations following the Colgan Air crash, during which the PF reacted inappropriately at approach-to-stall, at stick pusher.
PBL