Interesting choice of words. It leaves no doubt about how you view the abilities of someone who chooses to use the sups in that situation.
framer, I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying there!
Of course it's a good thing to use all the resources that are available and I would be the first to encourage reading of a supplementary procedure if necessary.
What I am saying (and I think this has been also mentioned by Tee Emm) is that there seems to be less and less in depth understanding about what you are doing and why you are doing it. If you understand same then the procedure makes a lot more sense rather than blindly following a "checklist".
I am all for this thread which has raised some interesting topics but perhaps a more productive question to ask is how we can get these messages across effectively to line pilots. Does the operator in question have an SOP manual for guidance? My last operator did and it was a very useful document.
I think what has manifest itself to a degree in this thread is that we all tend to have our own personal prejudices. A good operator will have clearly defined procedures but there is, as they say, more than one way of skinning a cat and, as some recent accidents have proved, there are dangers in discouraging pilots from having "original thought" and therefore necessary to provide a balance between structured procedures and common sense airmanship (ahem I mean "Threat and Error" management).
If you have experienced crews who know what they are doing you could maybe issue an Ops Manual which says "Don't crash the aeroplane", on the other hand if you have very inexperienced crews you have to issue an Ops Manual which spells out in minute detail exactly what is required. In reality all Ops Manuals are between these two extremes.