Wally Mk 2,
With respect,( and I agree with what you say) in the specific case of the Metro, it is not so much a matter of the philosophy of what should be taught/demonstrated during an endorsement, but the vital need (if you want to keep living) to read and understand limitations and prohibitions in AFMs.
The DH Trident was the most famous of the "T-Tail" accidents, FAA was smart enough to not even require "fully developed stalls" in the B727 and quite a few Boeing models since.
For those of you interested in the details, the B727 Vs speeds are NOT based on "conventional" stall speeds, but are increments based on "minimum demonstrated controllable airspeeds".
The Metro has the ability to get into an unrecoverable deep stall, hence a tail chute used in certification test flying. I have not read the SA227 certification test schedule, so I do not know the basis of the V speeds for the SA 227, but I would not be surprised if they, too, were based on "minimum demonstrated controllable airspeed".
For a pilot or FOI, it is not necessary to know how the AFM numbers were obtained, only that they must be followed, and the AFM limitations and prohibitions rigidly observed.
My criticism of the FOIs involved in the matter to which I specifically referred ( and all documented in exchanges of emails and letters between the operator, its the head of C&T and the Type Certificate holder, M7 Aerospace, the successor to Fairchild Dornier/ Swearingen) was the demand that the "the law" ( CAOs) "required full stalls", and, therefor the SAS including stick pusher had to be disabled, and that "the law" took precedence over the AFM.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 12th Dec 2011 at 04:27.