but the fact that a subject isn't in there does not mean it isn't important.
I don't think one term qualifies as a subject, however I didn't mean to suggest that it wasn't important, just that it wasn't required to understand CP, which in my manual is described in relation to total aerodynamic force.
so many so called 'professional' pilots seem to positively revel in their ignorance. If someone doesn't try to redress the balance then we will see more and more accidents of the AF 447 kind.
I think the lack of integration between ATPL theory and practical flying has something to do with avoidable accidents like AF 447. Theoretical knowledge is fairly useless without the confidence and understanding necessary to apply it correctly, and I think that confidence and understanding only comes from practical experience.
The frustration felt, and the poor regard some of us have for the current ATPL syllabus stems from the sheer volume of useless content, which as nice as it is to know, has no practical application (Impedance of a circuit?). Some of the content is ridiculous and that's at least part of the reason why ATPL theory is so often regarded as just another hoop-to-jump rather than something which is important to learn and understand. Burying the important topics in amongst the 'outdated gibberish' is a good way of trivialising them.
A moron.