Again, the biggest problem with Va is the general misunderstanding of what it is about. The general understanding is in line with the relatively new term, Vo, and, I presume, in due course, we will all cease to worry about Va which is an engineering thing, rather than operational.

Often people confuse the "design manoeuvring speed Va" which is a FAR/CS-25 structure certification definition with "flap manoeuvring speed"

Va applies to light aircraft also.

Below Va, an airplane will withstand a single full application of a control surface

Caveat. If a full application would put the aircraft above the limit load factor, then the input has to be a checked manoeuvre.

aggressive riders use was being actively taught by an over zealous ex military instructor.

The upset recovery training program was brought to account post accident and subsequently amended. I guess that it is very difficult to train line pilots in the ways of certification test pilots. Mostly things work OK as we don't have aircraft falling out of the sky with no fins on a day by day basis ?

It’s also important to recognize that after AA587, in accordance with NTSB recommendations, the FAA actually did change the legal definition of how “Maneuvering Speed” is used in the AFM, per 14 CFR 25.1583. It is unfair to judge the pilot’s actions at the time of the accident against the current regulation and information provided to he flight crew today.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...tion-statement

Some good discussion on the addition of Vo to Part 23 as well.

FARs
 

I think it more a case of trying to get the correct story through to the flying folk. The definition and associated conditions go back at least to the 50s.

The problem is more a case of the training side of the Industry not making sure that the story they give to the up and coming trainees is correct. Va has been one of my pet peeves for ever and a day.