Originally Posted by
foxmoth
Actually I think this was done by Smith Barry, not saying he got it right, but I think he set down what most instructors use these days and at least it was an advance on what there was before and it is not his fault that this has not been surpassed, rather a credit to how right he got it!
I'd suggest that it's not a case of how right he got it, but that no-one has been allowed to challenge established thinking foxmoth. Training standards are universally accepted by every country, and none dare to change them because that's the nature of bureaucracies. They're there for a long time, not a good time, and wouldn't risk changing things that might do them out of a job. In fact, their goal is usually to justify more jobs for bureaucrats, not less.
In response to BN2, the proportion of accidents resulting from pilot error is no less than 100%. Whether it's a maintenance fault or something else that initiated the failure, the buck stops with the captain, and he either should have identified the fault pre-flight or in flight before it failed, or had prepared skills and knowledge to handle any unexpected, unannounced, unpredictable failures, of which there are very few.
In response to rarely and others, the equation I learned was Power + Attitude = Performance. There it is in a nutshell. How to Fly.
Control Power & Attitude - and I do mean control. Total control of attitude mostly is the key. Control of pitch, roll, and yaw, even when adjusting power from idle to max. That's all there is to it. But it's not as simple as it seems... Very few know how to fly because they never learned how to control attitude to the extent that they could never lose control.