3 ms·

What a horrible click-bait title. There is nothing about a C185 or one modified with a STOL kit that is unstallable. A better title would be something like "Clu

• LeifCarrotson 2y ago
  I wonder if they're practicing modern journalism strategies that are worried about libel suits? Or it's so obviously satire to them that they don't need to clarify? When they write: > However, the investigation discovered that despite his experience, he had never practised stall recovery on the Cessna 185. The pilot had no knowledge of the aircraft’s stall behaviour at all. His opinion was that the Cessna 185 simply didn’t stall. In writing targeted at lay readers, I would expect this to be followed with something like "This opinion, of course, is complete lunacy. All aircraft can stall. Practicing stall recovery should be a normal part of pilot training."
  • ordu 2y ago
    I believe this article doesn't need such clarifications. It says in unambiguous terms that Cessna had stalled, with an obvious logical implication that a pilot was dead wrong. The article even discusses differences of how the stall occurs in modified and unmodified versions of a plane. To not get the message a reader must be not a lay person, but an exceptionally dumb one.
• axus 2y ago
  It was the pilot who believed this Cessna "never stalled". And so he did not recognize and had no idea what to do when it did.