Year after year, the National Transportation Safety Board and FAA nag pilots about accidents caused by "loss of control - in flight," which usually means a stall. The topic is well covered in training too. Dozens of questions on the subject appear on the knowledge test, and stalls are performed on the practical test and are part of any decent flight review. And yet while accidents caused by weather and controlled flight into terrain are declining, stalls remain one of the leading causes of fatal accidents in general aviation. Clearly, something is not working.The AOPA Air Safety Institute tried to remove the emotion from this subject last year by diving more deeply into the data about stall accidents. The result is a well-researched study that reaches some sensible conclusions. Most important, it is a reminder that there are no miracle cures for aviation safety.The study should serve as a polite but firm rebuttal to two common arguments in aviation: that safety problems can be solved by adding new avionics or by going back to "the way it used to be." Technology optimists, including the FAA, have suggested that angle-of-attack indicators are the solution, and some regulations have been adjusted to make them easier to install. On the other hand, the stick-and-rudder crowd loudly proclaims that a return to spin training (which hasn't been required for private pilots in more than 60 years) would help.
展开▼
机译：年复一年，美国国家运输安全委员会和美国联邦航空局（FAA）对飞行员“失控-飞行中”造成的事故进行了指责，这通常意味着失速。培训也涵盖了该主题。关于该主题的数十个问题出现在知识测验中，而失速则是通过实际测验进行的，并且是任何体面的飞行评论的一部分。然而，虽然天气和受控飞行导致的事故减少，但失速仍然是通用航空致命事故的主要原因之一。显然，有些事情行不通。 r n去年，AOPA航空安全研究所试图通过更深入地研究失速事故的数据来消除这一问题的影响。结果是一项经过充分研究的研究，得出了一些合理的结论。最重要的是，这提醒我们，没有任何奇迹可以解决航空安全问题。 r n这项研究应该礼貌而坚定地反驳航空中的两个普遍论点：可以通过增加新的航空电子设备或回到“以前的样子”。包括FAA在内的技术乐观主义者都提出，攻角指示器是解决方案，并且对某些规定进行了调整，以使其更易于安装。另一方面，拥挤的人群大声宣称，重新进行旋转训练（这已经超过60年了，私人飞行员并不需要）。
展开▼
