Pilot DAR,
I knew that we must find common ground eventually, and it seems that the AFM/POH is just such an issue. I agree with your concept of an unapproved section or attachment. I have written a guidance/reference document (not 'manual') for a particular aircraft that I did 90% of the developmental FT on, with ongoing Production FT, ferry and delivery of series aircraft, now exceeding 130 units. This has been in response to what I have learned about the early 'fire and forget' attitude which can be very detrimental for the continuing satisfaction of customers. Any void in the introduction to service briefings and famil flights will be quickly filled with improvised procedures based on knowledge of existing types which is not always, in fact rarely, completely appropriate, thereby establishing bad habits and incorrect tribal knowledge in the short term at least, untill the type experience can be accumulated to refine this knowledge. With this new type and my 70 page 'guidance document' complete with page 2 disclaimers, I now make sure that the company Chief Pilot, or training pilot gets a complete run through the entire 4 sitdown briefings and at least 2 serious sorties before a MTOW aft CofG check ride, so that at least one person in the company has possession of the underlying knowledge and skills that can prevent unneccessary issues arising later. There is a marked difference as to how this training package is received form one operator to another, however the larger fleet operators are very receptive and develop a factory link that they can then carry into the future.
Here in Oz we have a Group Endorsement system where a pilot receives type ratings for a series of similar aircraft types after approved training in one of these types. aircraft design features are separate endorsements, such as constant speed propeller, tailwheel undercarriage, pressurization, retractable gear, and we have separate float plane and floating hull endorsements. At least with this system a pilot can be reveiwed as they progress through the system and they shold not find themselves too far out of their depth with a new type.
At the flying shool where I instruct we are serious about ensuring that pilots ar thoroughly familiar with any new type, quality is far more important than saving a few bucks, and we find that there are students/pilots willing to travel from the metro areas out here to our regional airport in order to get training of this standard. As I stated previously, we also have a very good relationship with the insurance people, who on occasion advise pilots to see us first and talk premiums later, or even make it a condition that they do a check ride or course of familiarization/training. We also do a fair bit of FT for home buliders and then train them onto their new aircraft.
We also have specific endorsements for spinning, aerobatics and formation and additional instructor endorsements to permit the conduct of training for issue of these endorsements. (as well as multi engine, night VFR, and IFR ratings and instructor training). The main problem with any system is that the Federal Regulator sets minimum standards and most flight schools promote minimum cost packages and employ minimum experience flight instructors who are just building hours after obtaining a fresh CPL. The Insurance industry in recent years (more recent than in North America) has become the de-facto regulator and seeks to elevate standards by raising premiums for those with the poorer records, good in theory and actually benefits schools like ours where the product is more important than the price.
Must get back to a compliance document for those extremely tedious robots at EASA who insist that every aspect of part 23 aircraft parachute operations can be exactly defined in a supplement , for example we are required define the specific power settings to be used for descent, approach and landing - even though we have an approved AFM/POH accepted in 40 countries that includes this guidance/advice/checks/supplements and tables galore from which the pilot can actually define the profile the he/she considers most appropriate for a particular procedure or operation. It even has a FM supplement for parachuting operations already and it has been used for parachute operations in several countries for more than 7 years, but this seems to not be sufficient to meet with their crazy one size fits all manufacturers (not operator's) compliance requirements.....Grrrr.... another dozen pages of pointless drivel whilst not being allowed to include the really important stuff. Ho Hum.. life was not meant to be easy a former Prime Minister once said.
HD