Bergerie1
To address your first post. I would totally concur with your comments with regards large jet transports. The particular Level D FSTD I referred to represents a large regional turboprop that does have surprisingly good aero data within this region.
Additionally we are fortunate to have a Chief Pilot who was a test pilot for the airframe manufacturer and who has on numerous occasions performed this manoeuvre on the aircraft. He confirms that the approach to stall, stall and (most importantly) the stall recovery technique is very accurately represented on this FSTD. (It is for this reason the he has incorporated the demonstration of this within the type rating program).
Your second post raises a multitude of issues. Whilst not for 1 second would I dispute the accuracy of what you stated, I do think that at times the major airframe manufacturers are somewhat too dictatorial and maybe too conservative.
e.g. Airbus repeatedly state that “training should stop at the stall warning” yet (EASA) regulations clearly state that FSTDs should be tested both objectively and subjectively up to the point of stall. Additionally, many of our airline users also want to train their crews beyond the “Stall Stall” but the current data beyond this point is somewhat lacking and certainly unrepresentative.
Better and more accurate data does already exist now, both the large airframe manufacturers have stated this at conference, however the manufacturing ‘industry’ is quite content to provide the minimum to satisfy their perception of what is adequate to (just) meet regulations and adequate for their perception of normal training needs.
I would suggest the recent experience has shown that something more than their perception of normal training may well be required to ensure safe flight?
Data (to the operator) is not cheap. With initial costs starting from US2M upwards per FSTD and with literally hundreds of datapacks being sold over the typical life of a major airframe there really is really no excuse from the major manufacturers not to invest more effort into what is the heart of an FSTD.
I still firmly believe that this is a regulatory responsibility to fully enforce current regulations and to find a better way to fast track required changes. At least the FAA has shown some initiative with their new requirements for stall recovery and bounced landings training etc, but 5 years!