JT – moderator; appreciating your forbearance with aspects of this thread, it is unfortunate that the original theme has been disrupted by less relevant discussions. May I suggest that the thread be split, that the latter discussions be removed elsewhere so that a more meaningful exploration of the original subject might continue to be explored?
This request is not intended to stifle a broad range of views. We all seek ‘truth’ and require open minds lest we are mistaken, but unfortunately it is difficult to debate currently accepted ‘science’ truths relating to post V1 RTOs without rational and logical presentation of alternatives.
I’m very interested in the ‘aside’ discussions as they provide insight to aspects of human thought, behavior, needs, belief, etc; possibly relating to problems of pilot training and progression of corporate pilots into commercial operations.
In other threads, some protagonists (including johns) express views that they are overlooked when seeking commercial positions, and that ‘cheaper’ and less experience first officers are being hired instead.
The corporate experience indicated in this thread is not as required by the airlines (nor the industry). This experience is not flying hours, but consists of personal qualities, airmanship, and human interaction which contribute to ‘attitude’. I recall that many airlines hire for attitude and train aptitude. I doubt that they would hire a pilot exhibiting a ‘know it all’, self centered view of operations, particularly if they could not explain opinions which differ from the accepted norm.
With respect to the thread subject, the distracting discussion could cause us question that deep and often intuitive beliefs of ‘us ground abiding humans’ might be hidden in our subconscious, only to surface in stressful situations - RTO assessments at high speed. However, this would only be another cause for RTOs after V1, suggesting that current training suppresses this innate behavior.
One argument is that we are approaching the limit of human performance and thus for high speed RTOs there should be greater margins of safety (not necessarily as expounded previously). Technology has and still continues to improve reliability, thus the human in comparison appears the weaker link. Human behavior can be improved, but not always dependably in increasingly complex operations.
Some might call for automation, which is by no means as dependable or flexible as the human, or do we persevere with the human in times of economic hardship, including a reducing source of ‘experienced’ pilots and fewer opportunities to gain experience, and even perhaps a diminishing passion for flying vs just a job; but again these are problems not solutions.