Originally posted by 3BS twists Evan's words and sends them back
View Post
But you preach mental overload post and then preach complexity in the next.
And you refuse to acknowledge that complexity might just be one thing that goes into that blank line.
Plus- I know I don't read as many FCOM's as you, but after 10+ years parlour talking and watching youtubes and occasionally reading official FAA documents, I really don't remember seeing much that says, "BE VERY VERY SURE YOU DON'T DON'T DO WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO DO IN YOUR 152". What accident reports fault the pilots for reverting to some 152 procedure?
Yeah, there's the obvious stuff that ILS approaches unfold a good bit slower and flying downwind 1/4 mile off the centerline and doing a 1/4 mile base can be done much more easily in a 152, and hey, let's do a deliberate spin at 3000 ft AGL, and for a well-executed post-stall-healthy-but-aggressive climb, the 152 target airspeed is indeed a bad thing on an airliner...but really...where are the Flying magazine articles that "if they had only NOT reverted to their 152 training, the passengers would have lived? Where are the accident reports?
List or links please where the use of a fundamental was wrong and crashed the plane. (Delta 191 + the highest, ever-recorded wind shear...perhaps)
Late edit: As confirmed by a number of real pilots, they study the hell out of procedures AND totally appreciate and remember and respect the fundamentals, and work very hard and actually provide us with an insanely safe aerospace system...
So, I will continue to accuse you of disdain for 15 seconds of robust attitude and power, and you'll continue to offer recommendations, and the aerospace system will continue to haul me (at least occasionally) from here to there at fairly good speed, and rather mediocre customer service for one seriously reasonable price, unless I get killed on the way to the airport.
Comment