Fundamental question- Why not a requirement to stall commercial ac?
Hello all-
Long time lurker, GA type who has learned so much from this thread and everything else on PPRune- Thanks so much for an excellent forum.
Of course full stalls are never trained in the real world, but I can't imagine why there isn't a requirement for commercial pilots to have regular sim experience? I understand that current sims can't model stalls because no one ever spins and stalls commercial AC in testing, but whey don't they?
In a FBW environment, wouldn't it be easy to wire up a prototype and remotely pilot it beyond the envelope? This should generate data for design and efficiency that didn't exist before and give sims accurate data for stalls and spins?
Test pilots increase the odds of total failure incrementally, so I would imagine that a lot of data could be collected before the airframe is lost and planning on loosing the airframe would be the same as wing bending and pressure testing- You just factor the loss into the total cost of the program.
Perhaps the AC will provide great data in approach to stall and recovery after a spin or two. Maybe great data can be obtained falling off the high and low ends of the coffin corner- It might have the opportunity to be recovered after a high altitude stall, and if it makes it this far, the holy grail would be attempted recovery from a deep stall (assuming the AC can be deep stalled)-
If you get good data from that, maybe a high speed dive until the wings come off, but if I understand modeling correctly, everyone of these data points should allow better sim modeling for unusual attitudes.
Am I missing something? Is the cost of an aircraft the only thing stopping an approach that seems like common sense from the outside?
Much appreciated, and sorry if this was an insane question.