Ignition Override ..
Peace, brother ...
Is there so little to do .. that much of this knowledge actually helps the pilot
Does a pilot need to know the detail of the stuff being tossed about in this thread ? .. of course not.
Ought a pilot have an appreciation of the basic concern ? .. absolutely.
Where does it help ? .. in an appreciation of the potentially high hazard areas of the early takeoff from the viewpoint of obstacles and calculations intended to match the aeroplane's capabilities to the physical requirements of the day.
Why can't the "authorities" ... leave the runway/clearway/ and .. engineering up to the designers ..
The specialist airports engineering folk design the runway environs .. but they generally have only a limited understanding of the stick and rudder problems.. in the same way that we on the other side of the table have only a limited understanding of the airport design bits and pieces (and I have spent more than a few years working shoulder to shoulder with some topflight airports people).
Either the pilot or the operator has to attend to the matching of aeroplane to environment (configuration, weight, and procedure). For heavy iron (for which the present discussion is relevant) that is best left to the ops engineers (or those pilots who have the interest to acquire the skills involved).
The line pilot's role ideally is
(a) to have a sound basic understanding of the requirements and the risks as well as the background philosophy to a particular procedure's design
(b) to know which bits of the procedure are more critical than others and operate his/her aeroplane in a fashion appropriate to the procedure's requirements
(c) not to fall into the trap of "winging it" .. for which the understanding suggested above is/should be persuasive
.. and allow pilots to just learn what they need to understand ..
Unfortunately, the pilot of large aircraft has to acquire a very broad range of knowledge/skills at competence levels which might vary with Type and operation but must be appropriate to the task .. and this skill set includes at least the basics of operational performance.
To say otherwise is analogous to knowing how to takeoff and land in only light wind conditions .. today, I was part of a review group which discussed just such a circumstance .. involving an experienced SE pilot who had converted onto a light twin (with comparatively scant ME background) and very nearly rolled himself (and other crew) into an untidy ball during a trivial but mis-configured and mis-handled crosswind landing .. due to a very evident lack of general and Type-specific knowledge .. surely this is not much different to conducting a takeoff and hitting a critical obstacle on/just past the fence line because the pilot had no concept of the problems associated with the first segment OEI capabilities of his/her aeroplane.
.. in order to safely FLY the plane?
Just no option in recent years .. the pilot who doesn't have the artisan's skill set appropriate to the trade .. is an accident going somewhere to happen.
Isn't there enough to keep new, or even more experienced pilots busy?
When I was a much younger chap, I was flying with a colleague who picked me up on several minor mistakes I had made during my sector. Noting that I hadn't seen him make too many himself, I ventured the question "Don't you ever make any mistakes ?" .. to which his (wise counsel) response (which I put firmly in my philosophical box of tricks .. coming up to command, as I was, at that stage of my career) simply was "I'm not allowed to".
Whether we like it or not, there is no substitute for competence .. which is the culmination of a lengthy apprenticeship (sadly lacking in some environments), copious study, extensive training and practice, sound attitude and philosophy, and a bunch of other things according to one's view of life. Gann's "Fate is the Hunter" makes a good point of this basic attitude .. I loved the tale about the matches ..
Why must the basic ratings resemble theoretical university courses?
Of course they shouldn't (unless one is undertaking a TP course or similar specialist training) .. but a de-mathed version is essential (and several such useful reference texts are referred to repeatedly in PPRuNe) .. lest one end up with a skill set which, not being underpinned by fundamentally sound technical knowledge, is found to be wanting .. one only has to read some of the fanciful imagination and ramblings in many of the posts in the threads within this Forum to mine a sampling of the extent of the real world problem.
Similarly, from the other side, the aeronautics (and related) specialist(s) needs only an appreciation of the stick and rudder side of things to perform his/her functions .. but the more knowledgeable fellow/lady is the better rounded engineer in the real world outside the ivory halls of erudite learning .. if I reflect upon my undergraduate and other non-specific training .. possibly 1-2 percent has been of direct application to my professional activities over the years as a pilot and engineer .. most of what has stood me in good stead has been all those "extra" things in the way of acquired knowledge one picks up over the course of one's efforts to become a "well rounded" sort of chap .. and that is in addition to the similar qualities of my waistline ..
It takes little to baffle me ...
.. and the same applies to me .. in those disciplines in which my skill set is lacking .. but ought that preclude me .. or you .. or any of our colleagues .. seeking to reduce the skill set deficiencies .. ?