On 22 Sep/page 49 mm43 kindly posted the link to the Airbus Safety First magazine, with a follow-up link on page 50 by DozyWannabe. Thanks to both.
My reading of it has stalled (geddit?) at Issue 11, page 9, at the oh so simplistic stall condition & effects diagrams. They have been, of course, put together by Airbus, who IIRC only make one high-engined aircraft, the rest of their engines being underslung.
All well and good, but as happened on my initial 320 endorsement, people new to type will have come from low, on-longitudinal-centreline and high mounted engines, all of which require different stall recovery techniques, the range of which which these diagrams don't address.
At item 10, page 9, it is states that "
This generic procedure will be published as an annex to the FAA AC 120.
This new procedure has been established in the following spirit:
)- One single procedure to cover ALL stall conditions
)- Get rid of TOGA as first action
)- Focus on AoA reduction.
Bearing in mind that there will be strong recruitment pressures on airlines, and a probable need to accept less experienced aircrew, to cement the first item of this 'generic procedure' in legislation strikes me as a form of engineering conceit bordering on hubris, and will certainly bring with it deep industry-wide problems in the future.
Personally, I would require all trainees have to be exposed to the Victa 100 (not the higher powered versions, which were heavier on the controls) and be able to demonstate a continuous series of three loops without inducing stall buffet at *any point of the loop. It can & will 'bite' at *any speed and/or g-load if mishandled, and breeds a deep knowledge of airfoil behaviour that sticks with you. Cheap insurance. Oh yes, it also develops a fine 'touch', a la Gums early observations.