Dudley Henriques wrote:

Just a few thoughts on this if I may.

In my opinion, thinking this way as a CFI is not the optimum way to go,
and might in fact prove a valuable missed opportunity to save a life
down the road.

With cross control stalls, you want to do more than simply demonstrate
(or prove if you wish) that an aircraft can be stalled in a cross
controlled condition. You want to leave a permanent impression on the
student about cross control stall and ALL it's ramifications.

This can be done safely in BOTH the slip and skid condition, and it
requires an instructor who is sharp in stall recovery which you should
be to begin with.

Of PARAMOUNT importance to the cross control demonstration is having the
student EXPERIENCE the DIFFERENCE between the two configurations as they
relate to recovery response from the wing drop. To do this, the
instructor should demonstrate BOTH stalls, emphasizing the aircraft
behavior in each configuration.
To shy away from the skid configuration because of an aversion to
extreme bank or spin, whether that be on the student's side or the
instructor's side of the equation in my opinion is wrong.

....[snipped for brevity]

Another one for the archives. Thanks, Dudley.

I got the information about the question second-hand (the candidate told
the chief instructor who told me) so I'm not sure exactly what the
examiner as getting at. Now I'm really curious. It probably boils down
to the difference between a cross-control stall behavior in a slip
versus a skid. The FSDO examiners out here really hammer CFI candidates
on aerodynamics, or so I'm told, and less on the FOI if the candidate
appears reasonably capable of teaching. Seems appropriate enough.

-c