So you say, but you didn't come here to learn, nor have you done so. You came here to preach a failed sermon based on conjecture, ignorance, and emotion, with no useful information. You certainly did not come here to learn.
Let's see what you've learned...
- I have come up to speed on Flex/Assumed (1 day?)wth Mutt / Pug running away from my questions...I gather they were your best. A nice way for corporate to save money, having the pilots fly 200 people a little closer to the end of runway...and possiblly thier last flight..
Mutt, a professional performance engineer with a major airline operating internationally, didn't run away from your questions, but provided you great detail and numbers, as well as asked you questions you couldn't answer. You haven't come up to speed on assumed temperature or flex, as you still seem to fail to grasp even the most basic aspects of either one. Whereas no safety margins are reduced or compromised, and whereas safety is enhanced on multiple levels with reduced thrust takeoffs, clearly you missed not only the boat but the wake it left behind. You appear lonesome and confused waiting on the darkened dock.
- I have learned that you boroscope your own engines instead of hourly limits, flying them to ridiculous times..visions of South West Congressional Hearings are floating by...
You haven't learned. Airlines work in concert with manufacturers and their respective airworthiness authorities in maintaining powerplants through full and complete maintenance programs. On-condition maintenance for some components, specific hard life time limited items for others. If an operator, with a full maintenance and repair facility cannot boroscope one's it's own engines, then who can?
Your words betray an absolute lack of maintenance experience. From my perspective of not only an ATP, but a mechanic and inspector with more than a few years of experience behind me, you have a great deal to learn, but refuse to be taught. Where honeywell or P&W or any other manufacturer may set time limited or cylce limited overhaul intervals on certain small engines used in light business turbojet aircraft, different standards are set for other powerplants such as are used on many airline-class aircraft.
Perhaps you take offense that the engine manufacturers set standards for the engines...but the engine manufacturers set the standards for the same engines you fly supposedly fly, too. You seem to feel that all engines should be maintained by the same time intervals as the powerplants with which you've come in contact during your extremely limited experience. You apparently haven't been educated on the fact that non-charter, non-airline engines are often maintained on an on-condition basis, and many charter and airline departments have authorizations based on very close observation and documentation to significantly extend overhaul intervals, too. I've worked for several such organizations myself; companies which had such advanced experience with the particular powerplant that the manufacturer and the FAA provided authorization to extend the life of the engine by significant numbers.
Powerplants on test cells have run nonstop for years, over a decade, with little more than fuel and oil provided...including some of the same powerplants you have theoretically flown. Imagine that...did you know that?
You've learned nothing, but continue to run your mouth (or keyboard as the case may be). Why don't you tell us about these "South West congressional hearings." What hearings might those be? Are you familiar in the least, beyond a mindless google search, of the circumstances surrounding the media circus regarding Southwest Airlines? Clearly not. You might try educating yourself. No one else can.
- I have learned that airline pilot logic is that if we put less power through our engines, but take away all available runway stopping margins, the flight is safer
Powerplants run at reduced temperatures and power settings last longer, are safer, more reliable, and more dependable. Reduced power takeoffs are according to data provided by the manufacturer, under manufacturer approval, and fully approved by the overseeing aviation authorities (such as the FAA, CAA, etc), and meet every single safety margin there is. There is no loss of stopping ability or distance, when the takeoff is calculated to be stoppable from V1. The point on the runway varies with the power setting, but the required runway is always available. You've learned nothing about "airline pilot logic," which is actually aircraft and powerplant manufacturer logic, Federal Aviation Administration logic, Airline logic, Flight Safety International logic, CAE Simuflite logic, corporate logic, NBAA logic, etc. Seems you're the lone turnip out there that can't comprehend it. Safety is never compromised when calculations are done properly.
- I have learned that airline pilots, after about a 1000 posts will eventualy cave that it's possible a plane won't fly after V1, but that is a dark, dark prospect to an airline pilot who has built his balanced field into the stopway, is probably running overgross....and is told he HAS to go after V1...it's like you have to admit your religion is false..
We have learned that you've repeatedly attempted to introduce popular media articles regarding overruns or entirely irrelevant fly-by's in an effort to discuss this topic, but that you've ignored all the data provided by performance experts, using the factory numbers which show you and your ideas to be wrong and a lie.
You've failed to grasp the fact that the field doesn't need to be balanced, is seldom balanced, and has no reason to be balanced...and when it is, it's often by coincidence. Yet you keep coming back to it like a student pilot to his beginner's textbook.
You've claimed ten thousand hours of flying you don't have, and perhaps the only truthful statement you've made is that you've been rejected by an airline...for which you seem to have nothing but a case of sour grapes. You need to bear in mind that your own failures and your own inadequacies are not the fault of others here, but yours alone. You've claimed to have been trained at FSI...but FSI doesn't teach stopping after V1; you either didn't go, or lied about the training you received, but we've learned that no matter what name you choose to log in under, you still lie. No credibility.
- I have learned about V speeds ad nauseum, and thanks to those that linked all sorts of advisory circulars and educational .pdfs Those links and my ability to sort the info gave me enough bullets to take on all comers, and if I might ad, fight off guys that supposedly do this for a living.
If you count making yourself a laughing stock among some very respected professionals who really see you for what you are, then you've done well. Otherwise, thus far all you've managed to do is continuously lose credibility every step of the way. You still seem to fail to grasp the concept of V1; you've learned nothing.
- I have learned that 'taking the shilling' and 'doing what the SOPS say is basicaly a subsitute for safety..and very few in here are able to stand up to the social will of the group or the need to sit in a plane.
If by "taking the shilling" you mean that pilots are willing to compromise safety for pay, you haven't a clue. Where no lack of go distance, stop distance, and obstacle clearance exists due to very advanced and detailed calculations for every takeoff and every landing (when was the last time YOU performed a runway analysis or determined your obstacle clearance criteria with an engine failed on the go...or that you actually flew something other than a laptop computer??)...safety isn't compromised. As a professional aviator, I'm first to the seen of the crash, standing at the head of the line in front of anyone riding in back. I don't compromise safety; not by using reduced thrust, not by continuing after V1...every aspect of what I do is fully backed up by the performance capabilities of the airplane and methods and practices that aren't just written in ink, but in blood. That includes the knowledge that stopping is far less safe than going.
"Taking the shilling" means exercising the judgment to complete the flight safely, and that' what we're paid to do. Exercise the judgement to be safe. Reduced thrust takeoffs are safe.
My Operations Manual spells out all the conditions under which I can and can't make the flight. One overriding statement nullifies any issues regarding reduced thrust and that is that the PIC ALWAYS has the authority and discretion to make a full thrust takeoff if he desires. The truth is that it's often unnecessary, for many reasons that have been hereto discussed, with NO compromise to safety.
You've learned nothing.
- No one has standed out...maybe a comment here or there, to help..but no warriors or heros. I know you tried, thanks...but you caved to social pressure.
Standed out?
- At the end of the day..no one stated what was best for the passengers, but only what was good for saving a buck.
Reduced thrust takeoffs are best for the passengers. Reduced thrust increases safety margins on many levels, from reduction of minimum control speeds, to more reliable, safer engine operation over extended periods, fewer failures, extended mean time between failures, and ultimately, even the financial needs of the passenger are attended with reduced costs. Safety is always the chief concern, and reduced thrust caters to safety first and foremost. Clearly you have learned nothing.
Maybe one of these days I will see you in a sim or be called to consult at your company, I suggest you keep your opinions behind the veil of internet privacy...in the a room full of pilots, books, pen and paper, they would be hard to justify, and might cost you your job. I have no quams going toe to toe with people in an area of my expertise. If I had been schooled here, I would have admitted. I did learn some things, important things, but also saddened by the lack of horse sense, morality, and decision making skills that should be ineherent in a person that flies proffesionaly for a living. My goal was not to gauge, but be educated, and I was.
No, your goal wasn't to be educated. You won't be seen in any sim I'm flying, and I don't play with microsoft sim, so chances are slim that you'll see me...or most of the other people here. There is no chance you'll ever be called to consult at any company where I fly. You see, I've done the kind of the flying you've done, a great deal of it, plus more, and know the type of training you should have received...but you fly in the face of all of it. I've seen your kind washed out of training programs at Simuflite and FSI. I've known more than a few of your kind who are dead now due to your need to operate by your own understanding. There's always someone who thinks they can reinvent the wheel, and you're that someone. The shame of it is that you don't appear to have a clue just how many folks are laughing at you right now.
You go right on believing whatever you want to believe. You will, anyway. One can only hope that you aren't flying an actual aircraft, or that if you are you quit soon, lest someone innocent die at your expense.
Time to put your latest alter-ego on the ignore list.