Hi Centaurus … I agree completely with your thoughts about what Tee Emm was saying. The point I was driving toward (perhaps not so successfully) was that because we have historically treated the use of simulators just exactly like we used to treat airplanes … we have wound up using the simulator just as sparingly as we used to use the airplane. Of course, no one would consider taking a B-707 into a stall at 1000 feet AGL – because of the very real potential that exists. Unfortunately, we have treated simulators the same way. On the other side of that particular coin – there are some who would demand that the simulator provide exactly the same approach-to-stall cues as would be expected in the airplane. My point is that a simulator is a computer – and it will do just exactly as it is programmed to do … nothing more and nothing less – if all goes as planned. Unfortunately, as I know you are aware, a series of stalls in an airplane rarely, if ever, results in having all subsequent stalls look, feel, and function exactly the same way as the first stall … there is either some differing amount of aileron, rudder, or elevator displacement … air temperature or density difference, air velocity difference, gross weight difference, side-slip difference, or any of the other multitudes of potential differences. The point is that in all the recent serious looks into simulator data and simulator programming in this specific area – the largest complaints still continue to be directed toward the lack of similarity provided by the simulator in comparison to the airplane. But I think the vast expanse of difference between those two positions is getting dramatically smaller – and that’s a good thing. Again – I’d like to ensure that we don’t allow “perfection” to become the enemy of “perfectly good.” I think it would be a mistake to insist that simulators, in order to be accepted for training – and checking – in these outside the normal flight maneuvering envelope cases, we learn to point out how close the simulation really is, and concentrate on what can be pointed out by a competent instructor as to what could be expected. For example, one objection I’ve heard about the use of a simulator in a normal stall was that the buffeting of the simulator was no where near the magnitude or frequency that this person remembered from his last actual airplane stall as that stall was approached. That is quite probably true – but if the simulator were to provide for those extreme kinds of buffeting – what would happen to the visual system components or the hoses, jacks, servos, and valves connected to the motion system … not to mention what might break in the cockpit? Simulators today are not cheap … and I think that demanding that we risk destroying or seriously damaging even some components of the simulator … when we can get reasonable representations … is CLEARLYnot the way to go. I would expect that after any stall training series that might have been a bit on the docile side in the opinion of the instructor ... that instructor could pause and get the attention of the pilot(s) involved and say something like … “did you notice the buffeting? Well, in the airplane that buffeting would be increased by some 10 to 12 times in magnitude and at 3 times in frequency.” I think that such a message would have little problem in being understood completely.