aterpster
First, you have now been identified to me from other PPRuNe sources so I am familiar with your ID and basic background. There is no question here that you are other than very competent in this field so the discussion proceeds on that basis ...
Thus far you are spoken in generalities
Indeed, for other than specific runways the only specifics we can cite are regulatory
would not assure containment because of "rusty pilot" performance
Not quite what I am suggesting.
First, I have no problem with any protected area specification provided that it matches reasonably
(a) the aircraft's equipment capabilities to track within it
(b) the pilot's manipulative capability to do likewise. In this latter matter I have cited only a concern with critical failure cases (and I don't consider the usual proficiency tests as being in any way representative of critical). Personally, my concern is the low weight failure workload. However, the more general problem identified in the old DCA studies still remains valid and, considering the general reduction in manipulative skills in the modern airline world possibly is more a concern these days than in the past ?
Second, my references to concerns about pilot manipulation history is based on competent, current flightcrews - not at all rusty in the general sense.
Using FAA's AC 120-91 as a reference
The answer comes back to the above caveats.
Provided that the recommendations in the AC are observed, I would be confident that a reasonably skilled pilot should be able to address the routine nav tracking requirements. However, my observations in the sim (and the earlier DCA sim studies) indicate that one cannot be as confident for close in OEI situations other than for benign (rather than handling critical) failures.
what about locations that require a 15-degree banked turn be commenced at as low as 100 feet .. would miss the turn requirement or, alternatively, perhaps drop the wing into the dirt?
Not relevant to my concerns and I am not overly concerned about a simple turn situation either AEO or OEI after the failure has been contained. Indeed, my experience is that the averagely competent pilot can readily handle a simple turn with the failure thrown in on top of the navigation workload .. but with the criticality caveat.
is perhaps because engines simply have not failed above V1 (while still on the runway or just after rotation) at critical locations?
While we acknowledge the increased reliability of modern engines, the Standards philosophy still addresses the V1 (or later) OEI situation for the continued takeoff. Therefore, the concern relating to navigation and manipulative reliability remains a concern to be addressed.
I also find it incredulous that performance engineering is mostly still in the 1970s as to OEI flight path navigation.
Putting to one side any constraints which might be imposed by Regulatory pressure, I don't think that either Mutt or I have any problem with reduced protected areas predicated on modern RNAV capabilities.
Indeed, this is getting to be an interesting discussion ..