Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:22:10 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m10.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b4) with ESMTP id 1511612 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:17:37 -0400 Received: from JPKleber@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id q.c1.22b6f097 (25305) for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:17:33 -0400 (EDT) From: JPKleber@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:17:32 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10512 With all due respect to those who have differing opinions, here's my "bottom-line" philosophy on stalls: Less/No stall practice/training = less proficiency in stall recognition/recovery = more fatal accidents = more insurance claims = higher insurance rates for all of us! An aircraft which has demonstrated poor spin recovery should have a placard prominently displayed in the cockpit which reads: "NO SPINS" Same is true for stalls. John Kleber N83JK LEG2/G