Spin Training

[Cat Driver]

...you really should not pi$# these kids off but at our age GO FOR IT!

It is human nature for the young to look at the old as somehow inferior to their generation.

As far as flying goes only time will determine how much they know.

A good example of different thinking is the thread where some instructors think shutting off the fuel is a good training exercise.

You and I are morons because we do not agree with shutting off the fuel as a training exercise.

[triplese7en]

Cat I don't agree with shutting off the fuel as a training exercise either. I don't think old people are somehow inferior to my generation - other than maybe their eyesight and the ability to run as fast as me! Old pilots, by nature, have a wealth of experience. Some old pilots have good wisdom to pass on, others don't.

[Old Dog Flying]

., we must have done something right to have each survived 60 years of this mysterious thing called aviation. Now this new kid on the block has really got me confused...If he gives me acertified cheque fo 40K, I'll give him the keys to my aircraft and let him go practice his theories...what do you think????

Barney

[triplese7en]

Old dog - believing that because he survived 60 years in aviation, what he knows and what he did as a pilot is correct, and you shouldn't mess with it coming in with "new theories". I think accident investigation boards have a name for that type of attitude...

[DonutHole]

How do you investigate an accident that never happened???

[Old Dog Flying]

Like ., I too have survived 60+ years of aviation, 40 of which were instructing on more than 50 types of aircraft..I am not coming up with new theories, just tried and true old ones.

[Cat Driver]

Triplese7. I was not refeering to anything you have said.

[triplese7en]

Old dog - respectfully, some of the tried and true theories that are in Stick and Rudder by Mr. Wolfgang are incorrect. I'm not saying you are using any of those theories. I'd just like to convey that just because something has worked for a long time, doesn't mean it's correct or that it should continue to be used. I'd also bet that it wasn't just luck that you survived 60 years either.

[Cat Driver]

Triplese7. there are many ways to measure the flying skills of a pilot.

Should I need to show proof of my understanding of airplane handling skills the best way I can think of doing that is to produce the eight years of recurrent flight tests I passed to keep my airdisplay authority license in Europe.....

Win lose or draw that has to be worth something.

[photofly]

However, if the student is taught that they should apply rudder right away so that the wing doesn't drop, what happens when the wing very gently goes to the left and the student aggressively applies right rudder?

Then teach them not to do that. Teach them to use just enough rudder to stop the wing dropping. You can use "what if the student does it wrong" arguments against anything you like. Teach them to do it right, and they won't do it wrong.

It can easily go into a spin from that point. Why would we get the student to focus on applying rudder to pick up a wing that's dropped during a stall when the main thing we should be focusing on is getting out of the stall?!

The emphasis is on recovery with the minimum loss of altitude. Let the wing drop sixty degrees and after pushing to lower the angle of attack you still have to recover from a sixty degree bank as well as a nose down attitude, which means rolling wings level first. If you stop the wing dropping as you lower the nose then the recovery is quicker.

Why are we teaching students post-stall maneuvering when the airplane is clearly not designed for that? Only some fighters have post-stall maneuvering capability. A Cessna does not.

It clearly does have some post-stall maneuverability, as demonstrated in the falling leaf exercise. See the Flight Instructor Guide: "Teach your students to fly with verve and flair, to the limits of the aircraft."

So in this stall you're getting them to 'dance' on the rudders so that they keep the airplane upright and this is somehow supposed to get the student better at applying coordinated rudder pressure when not in a stalled condition. How backwards is that?

Correct: that's backward. In fact you're getting the student to dance on the rudders to get them better at applying uncoordinated rudder pressure when in the stalled condition. There are lots of times we teach students to fly with uncoordinated rudder: side-slips, crosswind landings, spin recovery, et al. Uncoordinated flight has its place. There's more to rudder usage than keeping the ball in the middle. The goal of the falling leaf exercise is to wake up the student's feet; not to teach coordinated flight. Although - of course, if you use the rudder to prevent the wing dropping in the first place, then where does the ball stay? In the middle.

Colgan Air Flight 3407 - airplane is stalled and Captain is 'dancing' on the rudders instead of pitching down to recover from the stall.

Let's worry about technique for stall recovery in turboprops and jet transports when we fly turboprops and jet transports. Primary training is about flying a C172, or similar. I've read the arguments about why lifting a wing with the rudder can be injurious to a Boeing 737 and I promise never to teach someone to fly a 737 that way, should the opportunity arise!

Other reasons: At the point of stall the air flowing over the wing is extremely turbulent and, therefore, not producing effective lift.

Nope... (I'm sorry, I'm starting to sound very argumentative, which isn't my intention) ... at the point of stall the wing is producing the maximum and most effective amount of lift that's possible for the given airspeed.

...The large amount of spanwise flow on swept wing aircraft ...

Again, let's leave jet transport techniques to jet transports. There are lots of things that you'd do differently on a 737; I refuse to fly a 172 as if it were anything other than a 172.

And this is where it gets really weird...

Imagine the aircraft has a wing drop to the left at the point of stall and the recovery procedure is initiated when the angle of bank is at 45 degrees. At this point, the elevator is effectively 50% elevator and 50% rudder.

I think we should be quite clear here... it doesn't matter which way the nose of the aircraft is pointing, the only way to lower the AoA of the wing is to use the elevators. Rudder isn't going to help you unload the wing.

[photofly]

Old dog - respectfully, some of the tried and true theories that are in Stick and Rudder by Mr. Wolfgang are incorrect.

I'd like to hear which ones you think are incorrect. Perhaps another thread?

[PilotDAR]

I'd just like to convey that just because something has worked for a long time, doesn't mean it's correct or that it should continue to be used.

How does one measure "correct"?

New ideas and technologies are great, but it is rare that a new technology warrants completely discarding the old one. (LED lights excepted). Most of the GA aircraft we fly today have designs which can be traced back to approval in the 50's, which comply to standard written in the late 40's.

I think that something which has worked for a long time is its own promotion. I seek out the wisdom of the grey haired pilots, and try to do it the way they say. I overlay new ways of doing things when it is obviously appropriate, not just 'cause someone presented the idea. Air has not changed at all, and GA aerodynamics has changed very little - there is a lot which is the same, and will always be....

[Cat Driver]

Further to PilotDar's comments.

If old techniques and airplane handling skills are incorrect how do you explain that some of us have flown over half a century in every condition imaginable and never ever bent an airplane?

[photofly]

That's easy. Old techniques are incorrect, but old airplanes are equally incorrect; the one cancels out the other.

[triplese7en]

photofly - This isn't meant to be condescending or anything. I find it hard to write about something that I've spent a lot of time on without adding a bit of passion to it!

Teach them to do it right, and they won't do it wrong.

Accident reports don't seem to support that. I've seen some poor instruction but if pilots are being instructed to do what is found in accident reports then something is beyond messed up.

This quote is from the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual for Fixed Wing Stability and Control: "In arriving at an optimum procedure for use by the operational pilot, the test pilot must not only consider the effectiveness of the technique (in terms of altitude loss or manoeuvrability regained) but must also consider the simplicity of the technique."

It's not about getting the test-pilot-perfect technique for stall recovery and teaching that. It's about teaching a procedure with just the right amount of effectiveness and the right amount of simplicity that a pilot won't have a hard time to accomplish that procedure, or have a high chance of severely messing it up. Rudder application while stalled is NOT needed. It get's the student focusing on a secondary problem when the primary problem is that the airplane is stalled.

The emphasis is on recovery with the minimum loss of altitude.

I cringe when I hear/see that. It is not about that at all. It's about recovering and living another day. Recently there has been WAY too much emphasis put on the "minimum lose of altitude" part to the extent that some instructors would do their absolute best to recover with the least amount of altitude lose possible and whatever technique they found to work, they would pass that on to their students. That's in complete contradiction to the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School Flight Test Manual, as quoted above.

I've struggled at my current company to get rid of this crap training with regard to the "approach to stall" exercise required on the PPC flight test in Canada. Again, it was possible to recover, and to actually gain altitude by powering out of the stall, in the large aeroplane we were flying that instructors and company examiners were interpreting the minimum altitude loss to mean that if it's possible to not lose any altitude then a 4 would only be awarded if the candidate didn't lose any altitude and performed the maneuver smoothly. I'd like to emphasize as much as possible that this is NOT a precision flying maneuver! The conditions on the flight test are NOT the flight conditions where you would inadvertently get into a stall in the operational environment. You are NOT watching the airspeed decrease toward the stall with your hand already prepped on the power levers to smash full power as soon as you hear a hint of the stall horn.

There was an Advisory Circular (and Policy Letter) issued in 2005 titled "Training and Checking Practices for Stall Recovery" - http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 7-1537.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... 2-2149.htm

"This requires that the primary pitch control (elevator) be used to initiate a stall recovery. The goal of minimizing altitude loss should be a secondary consideration, until a positive stall recovery has been assured."

That bold is theirs. Even with an AC published on this with clear emphasis on 1) using the elevator to initiate stall recovery, and 2) minimum altitude loss being a secondary consideration, the instructors and examiners completely ignore both advisories.

"The primary goals of checking should be to ensure that appropriate pilot actions have been taken at the first indications of a stall. These goals should take precedence over the current emphasis placed for minimizing any altitude loss, when demonstrating approaches to a stall in level flight."

Another quote stating the same thing. Note the "current emphasis placed for minimizing any altitude loss" bit - it's 2013 and nothing has changed.

"Recovery inputs should be the same for a recovery from an approach to a stall with emphasis on the need for increased and sustained pitch control (elevator) inputs until the airspeed is increasing rapidly."

That's in regards to full stall recovery procedure stating that it should be the same as the approach to stall recovery.

"However, for recovery from approaches to stalls, the training should encourage a nose down pitch input as necessary, to promptly reduce the angle of attack, with due consideration for any associated altitude loss and terrain clearance. At no time should a goal of zero altitude loss be a criteria for successful demonstration of recovery from the initial indications of a stall."

Couldn't be clearer, yet nobody seems to listen.

That's my rant on minimizing altitude loss.

Let the wing drop sixty degrees and after pushing to lower the angle of attack you still have to recover from a sixty degree bank as well as a nose down attitude, which means rolling wings level first.

Why are you letting the wing drop sixty degrees? That is completely unnecessary. I know a Cessna or Piper doesn't snap a wing like that. If you can't recover before the wing gets to about 30-40 degrees, you're doing something wrong.

It clearly does have some post-stall maneuverability, as demonstrated in the falling leaf exercise. See the Flight Instructor Guide: "Teach your students to fly with verve and flair, to the limits of the aircraft."

Yes, it does. However, it was not designed to be maneuverable post-stall. And I wonder what their interpretation of the "limits" of the aircraft were. Surely for weight and balance it would be to remain within the envelope. I would assume that with the flight envelop, the same philosophy might have been intended.

In fact you're getting the student to dance on the rudders to get them better at applying uncoordinated rudder pressure when in the stalled condition.

I don't think it's a good idea to teach students to use uncoordinated rudder while stalled. The whole point of this post is essentially to support my point so I'll continue on.

There are lots of times we teach students to fly with uncoordinated rudder: side-slips, crosswind landings et al.

All those maneuvers are when the airplane is not stalled! Using uncoordinated rudder in those cases is fine.

The goal of the falling leaf exercise is to wake up the student's feet

For the reasons I've already stated I will not teach a student the falling leaf exercise. There are other ways to "wake" the student's feet. As I mentioned, CS's advice to practice rolling the airplane actually does apply to how the student should be using the rudder pedals and will help "wake" the student's feet.

Let's worry about technique for stall recovery in turboprops and jet transports when we fly turboprops and jet transports.

An airplane is an airplane. Also, gliders recover in the same manner. There isn't any thrust/power/throttle lever so you can skip that step - the rest is exactly the same!

I think this is a good time to introduce this video: http://youtu.be/HVt6LiDbLos?t=53m57s

Notice that he says the stall recovery procedure for the Airbus/Boeing airliners at low altitude is "nearly identical" to that used in General Aviation.

Then notice how on the presentation it's emphasized that "first and foremost" you must "LOWER THE NOSE". The presenter also verbally emphasizes the requirement to lower the nose.

"Altitude is of secondary importance" - that kind of ties into what I've written above.

Then "restoration of normal pitch and roll attitudes is of secondary importance". This is the most important point with regard to the rudder usage in the stall recovery. He also verbally emphasizes this point as well, saying: "Get the nose down, worry about the roll later."

at the point of stall the wing is producing the maximum and most effective amount of lift that's possible for the given airspeed.

I used the term "effective lift" for a reason. Turbulent airflow does produce lift, however, it also produces significant drag which tends to slow the airplane and further decrease the lift of the wing. It's not efficient to have turbulent airflow. Yes, the wing does produce enough lift at the Clmax to produce 1G flight, but why does the airplane drop "like a rock" after stalling? Because of the sharp drop in Cl and the sharp rise in drag. I'd rather not pick bones on this one part as it's so tiny compared to what we're talking about. I could have worded my sentence better I'm sure.

I think we should be quite clear here... it doesn't matter which way the nose of the aircraft is pointing, the only way to lower the AoA of the wing is to use the elevators. Rudder isn't going to help you unload the wing.

Yup, I edited my post as it wasn't clear. Essentially what I was saying is that when you're stalled, the airplane is pointing significantly away from the direction that it's traveling. Applying forward elevator while at 45 degrees puts the airplane's nose a lot closer to where the airplane is heading (i.e., reducing AoA and aiding recovery to normal flight). Opposite rudder while at 45 degrees moves you even further away from where you're going - i.e., does not help in that regard.

All the references I've quoted throughout this have specifically mentioned to not use uncoordinated controls on stall recovery, to use coordinated controls on stall recovery, emphasized reducing pitch by using the elevator, and said that minimizing altitude and restoring normal pitch and roll attitudes should be secondary considerations. All these references span from general aviation airplanes (FAA Flying Handbook), turbine commuter airplanes (Advisory Circular on Training and Checking Practices for Stall Recovery), and airliners (Airbus/Boeing Flight Test Lecture). They're all saying essentially the same thing and you're telling me that the fundamental stall recovery procedure is different for each airplane? It is most definitely not different. It is only the specifics, such as when and how to add power, that vary between aircraft type.

Do you have any document from a government agency, accident investigation board, aerodynamicist, aviation regulatory body, etc. that says you should use rudder in an uncoordinated manner to stop a wing from dropping during stall recovery? Everything I'm finding, across the spectrum of aviation, is saying the complete opposite.

[triplese7en]

I'd like to hear which ones you think are incorrect. Perhaps another thread?

Not now, photofly! It's been ages since I've picked that up and I really don't feel like digging through it again.

I do remember CS posting a quote from it and saying that AvCanada would be up in arms at what was being said. Unless he deleted it, it's still here.

He does have a lot of great concepts but what I wanted to point out in my comment in this thread is that not everything was correct 40, 50, 60 years ago. That is all.

I think that something which has worked for a long time is its own promotion. I seek out the wisdom of the grey haired pilots, and try to do it the way they say. I overlay new ways of doing things when it is obviously appropriate, not just 'cause someone presented the idea. Air has not changed at all, and GA aerodynamics has changed very little - there is a lot which is the same, and will always be....

PilotDAR - those are my exact thoughts on the matter as well. I may not have communicated as effectively as I wanted to.

If old techniques and airplane handling skills are incorrect how do you explain that some of us have flown over half a century in every condition imaginable and never ever bent an airplane?

Cat - again, a misinterpretation of what I meant. As I've stated above, the point of my initial comment about this matter was to say that not everything back in the 40s-60s was 100% correct. I was trying to say that maybe the method that the grey haired pilot knows isn't the best. I'm sure with your experience you can think of a time when a younger or less experienced pilot taught you something.

[triplese7en]

Photofly - I've edited my first post in my replies to your 5th and 6th quote I used.

[photofly]

I think, perhaps, we're not both really using "uncoordinated" in the same way. I did several stalls today, both power on and power off, preventing the wing dropping each time with significant, timely, and smooth use of the rudder. The ball stayed in the middle throughout. In point of fact, it's not the rudder that was coordinated or uncoordinated - it's the flight. Coordinated in this case, by use of the rudder.

But I don't think the concept of "coordination" is really relevant here. If a wing drops as a stall proceeds, this is already an uncoordinated flight path. The pilot can either follow through with rudder towards the low wing, yawing into the turn, which is going to drop the wing more, or use rudder away from the low wing, which you might consider less coordinated but I think will stop the aircraft rolling off into a spin. It is, after all, exactly the same rudder as in spin recovery. Do your sources refer to rudder against the wing drop as "uncoordinated"? Or is that a connection that you've added yourself?

I do agree that fussing about the rudder is secondary to lowering the angle of attack. But I can move my hands in one direction and my feet in another direction at the same time. I don't have to surrender one objective to achieve the other.

Do you have any document from a government agency, accident investigation board, aerodynamicist, aviation regulatory body, etc. that says you should use rudder in an uncoordinated manner to stop a wing from dropping during stall recovery?

Again I object to your use of the phrase "use rudder in an uncoordinated manner" - it's the flight that's coordinated, or not - not the control surface.

TP13723E, Flight Test Guide (Private Pilot Licence) lists among the performance criteria for Ex.12 (Stalls): "(f) maintain directional control" and "TP975E - the Flight Instructor Guide - Aeroplane - lists under Essential Background Knowledge for Exercise 12 (Stalls) item (2)(f)(i) "Recovery with and without power: control direction with rudder;" I'm fairly certain that if you fail to correct a dropping wing with the rudder then you're failing this criterion.

I take your point about overstressing "minimum loss of altitude" - it doesn't appear in the test criteria. But the flight test guide says and "(h) avoid ... excessive altitude loss", and TP975E list Objective (4) for the same exercise as "To teach:... the correct recovery for minimum loss of altitude".

I'm afraid it's above my pay grade to say what the best stall recovery procedure is. Get the Flight Test Guides rewritten and we can teach something else. But if you want to know a good reason why you should use the rudder in a stall recovery, it's because you won't pass your PPL unless you do.

[photofly]

BTW, Here's a little nugget from the Flight Instructor Guide (Aeroplane):

Questions for Ex. 12 (Stalls) (Emphasis added):

(2) WHen recovering from a stall during which a roll has developed, why must you not use only aileron to recover?

[triplese7en]

The ball stayed in the middle throughout. In point of fact, it's not the rudder that was coordinated or uncoordinated - it's the flight.

You're really getting into semantics here! If you apply rudder and don't apply appropriate aileron, the airplane will enter uncoordinated flight. That is typically referred to as using "uncoordinated rudder" and I have used that interpretation throughout my discussion.

use rudder away from the low wing, which you might consider less coordinated but I think will stop the aircraft rolling off into a spin.

I've already explained why you shouldn't do that. By using opposite rudder you are moving the nose of the airplane away from it's current flight path. I'm just repeating myself now.

Do your sources refer to rudder against the wing drop as "uncoordinated"? Or is that a connection that you've added yourself?

I'll repeat what I said at the top: "If you apply rudder and don't apply appropriate aileron, the airplane will enter uncoordinated flight. That is typically referred to as using "uncoordinated rudder" and I have used that interpretation throughout my discussion."

The coordination-for-dummies method would be to look at your ball in the TC or T&B instrument you have. If it's centred, you're coordinated! If it's not centred, you're not coordinated!

But I can move my hands in one direction and my feet in another direction at the same time. I don't have to surrender one objective to achieve the other.

And most people can pat their head with one hand while rubbing their belly with the other hand.

This is not about what can be accomplished at a safe altitude, when the pilot knows a stall will happen, has rehearsed the stall recovery, and is ready to recover the instant the airplane stalls. If the pilot knew he was going to enter a stall I'm sure he/she would take steps to not do so. Virtually every stall accident is an inadvertent stall - meaning the pilot didn't intend to stall the airplane at that point in flight. So why did he get to that point? You could probably conclude that they've lost significant situational awareness, possibly they are mentally overloaded, stressed, maybe they have ice on the wing (even airplanes with boots will usually have some residual ice), etc. So pretty much the complete opposite of the environment in which the pilot is trained to recover from a stall.

Go back to the quote from the US Navy Flight Test book about using an effective, yet simplistic stall recovery procedure. Focusing on pitching to recover and then flying out of the unusual attitude you're in is a lot easier than getting a pilot to simultaneously pitch to reduce AoA and apply a particular amount of rudder pressure to "aid" in recovery, as you say. Your way is simply more complicated.

Those Canadian documents you referenced need to be updated to conform to the rest of the aviation industry. Specifically regarding the "avoid ... excessive altitude loss" part - yes, you do want to avoid excessive altitude loss. 1000' loss is excessive in a C152. The problem is when that starts to become a primary goal which I've seen in the company I work at currently which operates large aeroplanes, and at the flight schools where I used to work where some instructors took that too far.

Get the Flight Test Guides rewritten and we can teach something else.

When I know something is wrong, I don't wait for the government to get its act together and come up with new teaching materials. They already have in some respects - see the AC I linked from Transport Canada. For example, I know the forces-in-a-turn diagram in the purple Flight Training Manual is wrong. I've talked with Transport about it and they said they would review it for the next revision. I'm not going to wait for them to reissue it. I will teach the students correctly the first time - something called primacy, which is talked about in one of Transport Canada's other documents. FTGU seemed to get it correct.

But if you want to know a good reason why you should use the rudder in a stall recovery, it's because you won't pass your PPL unless you do.

Absolute rubbish! I've always taught my students to not use uncoordinated rudder in their stall recoveries and I've had students come back with 3s and 4s on the flight test for stalls.

[triplese7en]

BTW, Here's a little nugget from the Flight Instructor Guide (Aeroplane):

Questions for Ex. 12 (Stalls) (Emphasis added):

(2) WHen recovering from a stall during which a roll has developed, why must you not use only aileron to recover?

How does that support anything you've said? You most definitely shouldn't use only aileron to recover. You also most definitely shouldn't use only rudder to recover.

[photofly]

You're really getting into semantics here! If you apply rudder and don't apply appropriate aileron, the airplane will enter uncoordinated flight.

Well... no. Like I said, I did several stalls earlier today, with a lot of rudder input to stop the wing dropping and no aileron input at all; the ball stayed in the middle the whole time. Is that coordinated rudder usage - because there was neither slip nor skid? Or was it uncoordinated because there was no aileron input? Were my rudder inputs good, or bad?

This is not idle semantics, it's a matter of clarity over which rudder inputs you consider "uncoordinated" and therefore bad. I'm not clear about what you actually disapprove of, and I'm not sure you are either.

BTW, Here's a little nugget from the Flight Instructor Guide (Aeroplane):

Questions for Ex. 12 (Stalls) (Emphasis added):

(2) WHen recovering from a stall during which a roll has developed, why must you not use only aileron to recover?

How does that support anything you've said? You most definitely shouldn't use only aileron to recover. You also most definitely shouldn't use only rudder to recover.

It doesn't. I was pointing it out to those people who say you shouldn't use aileron at all.

Those Canadian documents you referenced need to be updated to conform to the rest of the aviation industry.

You have an obvious passion for this particular point; I look forward to a time when TC changes its training manuals and test criteria accordingly.

I do see a germ of value in what you're saying, at least this far: stressing about not dropping a wing is like stressing about demonstrating the perfect spin entry; the goal of basic pilot training is not about flying the best aerobatic manoeuvre but about what happens next. I do think there's value in being able to control the wing drop in a stall though. It does tie in well with spin recoveries.

[triplese7en]

Well... no. Like I said, I did several stalls earlier today, with a lot of rudder input to stop the wing dropping and no aileron input at all; the ball stayed in the middle the whole time. Is that coordinated rudder usage - because there was neither slip nor skid? Or was it uncoordinated because there was no aileron input?

The procedure to stall recovery should first be to reduce the angle of attack by using forward elevator. There should be NO inputs to the ailerons or rudder at this point. Once out of the stall, full coordinated use of all flight controls should be used to get back to straight and level flight. Reference the FAA documents I referenced for more information.

To further clarify: it's a two step process. 1) Recover from stall. 2) Recover to straight and level flight.

Does that clear that up?

You have an obvious passion for this particular point;

I do. This is something I see as being extremely clear to me. I find it's quite important, especially considering all the recent accidents involving stalls.

I assume you've read this: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/24/cockpit-crisis/

I look forward to a time when TC changes its training manuals and test criteria accordingly.

Well they've published an AC specifically for commercial operators regarding training and checking practices for stalls, yet that seems to have done nothing. It was published in 2005 and, 8 years later, none of the people responsible for training and checking at my company have heard of it. We're a relatively large company in Canada. I wouldn't hold your breath on TC updating everything. Even when they do I fully expect to see the "minimum loss of altitude" bit still in there - and for good reason. I just hope they also put in the FTG what they've written in the AC with regard to that being a secondary concern.

[triplese7en]

the goal of basic pilot training is not about flying the best aerobatic manoeuvre but about what happens next.

Exactly!! These spin recoveries and stall recoveries are not precision flight maneuvers. If you want that go do aerobatics after. Primary flight training is to save your bacon when you get over your head. I don't care to see someone demonstrate a 2 turn spin - meaning they enter on north and go around twice, ending up back on north at the end of the recovery procedure. That's a precision flying maneuver and you can save that for your aerobatic training.

Being able to recover from an approach to stall with zero altitude loss takes skill and careful handling of the airplane - it is a precision flying maneuver. But treating it as such takes away from the real reason it's in the training syllabus - to ensure that when a pilot inadvertently gets into an approach to stall situation, or a stall, they are able to recover (under the stresses of their current situation) and live to tell the tale.

I do think there's value in being able to control the wing drop in a stall though. It does tie in well with spin recoveries.

I really don't see that at all. The ONLY thing that's related is that you use opposite rudder to recover from a spin. I've never had any problem whatsoever in getting a student to understand why they need to use opposite rudder and then to actually use opposite rudder in the spin recovery. They don't require any maneuver prior to a spin to get them used to applying opposite ruder for a spin recovery. I've always taught to never use rudder in stall training and I've never had a problem with the students in spin training.

Some thoughts:

When the wing drops in the stall, the airplane doesn't really roll around its longitudinal axis. It sort of falls off to one side as if it's falling/rolling off the top of a ball. Due to that, its heading will change. Who cares?! Once you've recovered from the stall, roll wings level on that heading and pull up. Maintaining a heading into an out of a stall is pointless and counterproductive. The best way to recovery is essentially let the plane do what it wants to do. What happens when you throw a paper airplane that isn't pointed along its flight path? The airplane weathercocks to follow a new flight path. So let the plane fall over to the one side and recover on that new heading. Forcing the airplane to stay on one heading by putting the airplane into a slip (a maneuver for losing altitude) with the rudder is counterproductive to recovery. This is where my little tap of the rudder in the direction of the wing drop comes into play (again, not discussed with students who are just learning the maneuver). Since the airplane is falling to one side into a slip (lets says a left wing drop), you require left rudder to coordinate it. Once you've pushed forward on the yoke, do a quick tap of left rudder and that moves the nose around to align with the flight path, roll level (using coordinated inputs of right aileron and right rudder), pull out of dive. It feels so natural and beautiful when you do it too.

[Colonel Sanders]

The procedure to stall recovery should first be to reduce the angle of attack by using forward elevator. There should be NO inputs to the ailerons or rudder at this point.

That might be the way you fly an airplane,
but that's suboptimal and as such I find it
uninteresting.

If I listened your advice, I would have died
a long time ago.