Mr Lappos
Let me firstly make an unequivocal statement: Pilots and organisations should not make up their own procedure, where there is already a laid-down procedure within the RFM/Ops manual/EOP NOP (which should have derived from RFM anyway). I hope this states my position clearly...
Where there seems to be a better way to bring an anomoly to a decent conclusion, that procedure should be considered by the manufacturer (aided by a little consultation with clients), and if deemed better, included as an amendment to the RFM. There is a responsiblity encumbent upon the manufacturer to continue improving thier product after point-of-sale. These are not 'fire and forgets'. The first stage of any such change will probably come from pilots, familiar with the aircraft, discussing things.
I do acknowledge that there is a danger that individuals will have a discussion with their 'inner Douglas Bader' and try things that are inappropriate, at inappropriate times... Not good
I also agree that the Sim is exactly that, Cyclic only autos that can be succesfully completed at WPB should not be attempted in real life! There is from necessity, a generic synthetic element to producing a computer generated fault, from something mechanically derived (good example being the aforementioned interaction of DECU/stepper/manual input/FMV within an esentially mechanical FMU).
If my original question is read, in conjunction with my rather lengthy notes here, I hope that you'll agree that I was asking the question of pilots, with the hope that someone from Sikorsky PLC, would contribute some developmental notes. As My Question poses: Has the manufacturer thought beyond the obvious? i.e. Is there a good reason why my observation is completely wrong?
Cheers
Doc