In the interest of safety could we call Vy struggling climb airspeed, as it is in variable wind conditions, rather than best climb airspeed? Could we, in the interest of safety, rather use Wolfgang's term zoom climb or cruise climb as the safe climb airspeed? Slower gaits, another Wolfgang term, are for landing and are not really safe for climb. Vy, while mathematically superior, is not as safe down low as zoom climb or cruise climb. Vy is not misinformation, it is just not the best safety information. It is not meant to be deceptive, but it can be one of the holes in the Swiss cheese.

Over the years, the most common fatal accidents in GA have been student or student and instructor stall on takeoff and/or in the climbing turn to the crosswind leg. I understand the need to practice short field takeoff, but the pitch to Vx attitude immediately after roll to Vx airspeed (PTS), or even after acceleration in ground effect to Vx airspeed (ACS), is missing the more important lesson about level in low ground effect energy. Looking through the accident reports we often see the survivor or witness claim a loss or reduction in power problem. That reduction in energy, not engine power, came from pitching to Vx or Vy attitude early. That reduction in energy, not engine power, was left on the runway remaining before the need to pitch to Vx or Vy attitude. And that Vx or Vy pitch attitude is appropriate only to just clear the obstruction. Beyond the obstruction Vx pitch attitude is certainly not appropriate and Vy pitch attitude is appropriate only in stable air with close monitoring of the airspeed indicator as in ITO. I remember just one dot pitch attitude in ITO and indication of climb. I don't remember any Vy pitch attitude requirement without minimum crossing requirements close to the airport.

Engine power in only one of many sources of energy in flying, especially in the takeoff. Ground effect, wind energy including shear and up and down air, just over the obstruction rather than high over the obstruction, and down drainage egress are also sources of energy that should be taught and utilized.

ACS, tells us to “Establish a pitch attitude to maintain the manufacturer’s recommended speed or VY, +10/-5 knots”. Students are replicating their instructor. If the instructor doesn’t demonstrate, the student won’t either.

In absence of a manufacturer recommended speed, visibility is critical in the pattern, not to mention the push-over required if your engine fails.

I see big concerns on the base-to-final turn and this issue has been highlighted recently at a STOL competition. Very sad and preventable.

The really sad thing about the base to final turn is that every fatality should be unacceptable loss. The airplane, left to itself, knows exactly what to do. The nose will go down to exactly replace the lift lost to bank. It will not, it cannot, stall. Only the pilot can do that by pulling back on the stick. Why is the pilot taught, even indoctrinated into pulling back on the stick?

Juan Browne and our Gunny (Scott Perdue) were on Dan Gryder's Sunday accident analysis for the week celebrating two weeks of no fatal general aviation accidents. I agree with them that rapidly getting at the data and the ability to analyze quickly and videos have helped pilots see what is actually happening out there and consider modification of practice.

We have many videos now of stall and stall/spin in the pattern or on go around. We can easily see that the pitch up is not nearly as high as many students pitch up to in order to quickly achieve the critical angle of attack during stall practice. In the pattern it happens calmly with the pilot doing exactly as taught: he is pulling back on the stick to maintain altitude.

Will we ever consider what Wolfgang asks us about turning: "What does the airplane want to do?" What is your answer to that question concerning the proper, according to the airplane, way to turn? What is the point of the potential energy of altitude if it is excluded from ACS in the prevention of stalls in turns in the pattern? ACS imply that you will recover from any stall in the pattern. Do you want to bet your life on that after observing so many normal looking, low pitch attitude, turns that result in fatal stalls?

Instrument integration (keeping one eye on the airspeed indicator) seems not to have solved this problem. Even with complete automation, uncontrolled airports cannot guarantee airspeed, altitude, and procedural track as does IFR and ATC. Is Wolfgang's "Stick and Rudder" regressive? Would that be going backwards into a dark age? We broke a lot of airplanes back then. There was no PTS or ACS back then.
We had more incidents and accidents, but no more fatalities. Why was that? Perhaps we knew airplanes and flying and such better. Perhaps we actually listened to Wolfgang and considered what the airplane wanted to do.

Automation has increased IFR safety. If you can afford it, why not get all you can get so you just have to manage safe IFR flying? And practice your VFR stalls and pattern work? I don't know. That seems a bit more dangerous using airmen certification standards. Maybe use the license to learn to go back and look at what Wolfgang taught.