Harley,
I entirely agree with your observations and comments, in particular, those on flight manuals. I have had numerous discussions with certifying authorities of the inclusion (or not) of information in a flight manual, or supplement. Yes, some seem to take exception to the comments of a test pilot, who just wants to see the important information presented in a way that the next pilot will find most useful, and most easily accessed. I have always had success getting whatever useful information I suggested the pilot should have available, into the unapproved section of the flight manual, thus my sense of purpose was maintained.
There are many types of operations, of which many aircraft are quite safely capable (in trained pilot's hands, of course), which are either not at all mentioned in the flight manual, mentioned as "non approved" or indeed prohibited. Aerobatics and spins come to mind (but they do have associated design standards). Others like downwind landings (as you have so correctly pointed out) are mentioned only enough to let the unwary get themselves into a scary situation. There is no requirement in the design standards to show complaince to downwind landings.
I entirely agree on the value of "tribal knowledge" and that very subject has come up in discussion between myself, and Transport Canada aircraft certification staff on a number of occasions. The challenge is that "part 23" & "CAR 3" aircraft are often not operated in an "operating certificate" environment, where type or operations training is actually required. The aircraft is required by design standards to be able to be safely operated through all of the phases of flight decribed in the standards with only three things: A pilot trained to the minimum for that class of aicraft, average piloting skills and attention, and the flight manual as the only reference. Thus the flight manual not only has be be adequately informative, but complete, in that the pilot is not expected (by the standard) to seek "type training". This is not the case for helicopters, where (in Canada anyway) each type requires endorsement on the pilot's license. Thus, there is a bit more "give" for helicopters requiring more type trained/experienced pilots.
There would be an uproar of monumental proportions of type endorsements were required for the licenses of light aircraft. The flight manual cannot do it alone though, it's only a book. Hands on training is required to assure safety. But how do you require the training. The regulators generally don't, so the only other authority who can mandate anything is the insurance companies. They wisely insist on type training, before they will insure many pilots on many types. In some cases, they just will not insure, until there is evidence of satisfactory demonstration of skills during training. As an example, I offer the Lake Amphibian. Try to get insured on that without training. No amount of float flying time will be accepted in place of training on type, and that's not easy to get.
In Canada, a flying boat (Lake Amphib) and a floatplane (as distinct from flying boat in that it has two floats) are both covered under the one endorsement "sea" on the pilot's license. The wise people who, in the past, trained Lake Amphib pilots, proposed to Transport Canada that the two types have distinct endorsements. The idea had no traction. Lots of floatplane pilots got into Lake Amphibs, and had expensive problems. Insurers laid down the law, and today it stands.
Insurers, however, do not insist on specific training for downwind runway operations. They just refer you back to the flight manual and your training, both of which are documented with words like "land as much into the wind as possible", and then they ask you what the heck you were doing, if you had an accident while doing otherwise. I fear not being covered if I don't have a really good answer to that question, so I'm really cautious about landing into the wind. (also because I pay for my own maintenance). For the few times I have had to land downwind (Maseru, Lesotho comes to mind) because it really was a one way runway, I applied the most of my skill, and did okay. If I had not, I would be having that unhappy talk with the insurance adjuster, but with a good reason in my decision making.
I propose that downwind runway operations are best considered operations at the periphery of normal, which require special training, and a good reason for being undertaken. Is shortening turnarounds a good enough reason? I shall not judge! Lots of pilots are trained for, and undertake operations at teh periphery of normal, and do very well. Should it be discussed and advised to be done on a forum like this? In my opinion, probably not.
Come flying with me any time, I'll teach a little, and learn a lot! (I'd love to try some of those PNG runways!)
Cheers, Pilot DAR