Pete - the fact remains that that particular pilot made his decisions under those particular circumstances, and recovered the aircraft without damage, without passenger injury and (incidentally) zero recovery costs.
Correct. None of that is false. But the fact remains that based on the situation he found himself in, he took the option which was by far most likely to result in death.
You are made a post judging that particular event, based solely on a rigid "never turn back" philosophy, for a course of action which (at the VERY best) can only equal his result (and, incidentally, cost more in recovery) and in many cases produce a worse result.
Yes I made a judgement on that event. I do not have a blanket "never turn back" philosophy as you imply - this indicates to me that you have failed to read carefully my previous posts since the discussion was started.
You weren't in that cockpit, you don't know how high he was off the end of the runway, what he surface conditions he flew over were like etc etc - and in the end, as I said, any other course of action can only equal (not better) the result he achieved.
Correct, I wasn't in the cockpit. But I do know how high he was - you can plainly see it in the video. I know INTIMATELY what the surface conditions are like due to previous experience - essentially rural land. I don't believe placing the aircraft so close to a stall/spin/crash/burn/die scenario was a good result, despite the fact that you do.
I'm perplexed by the fact that it appears you are now defending your original attack on me to maintain your pride.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear. We are pilots. Our job is, and always has been, to take the safest option. Every operator and airline I've worked for places safety at the forefront of decision making.
I would have thought that someone with two and half thousand posts on a pilot forum would understand that a safe outcome at the end doesn't necessarily mean it was achieved using the safest method.
Let's pick an example:
Are you saying that his air return was safer than if, for example, he had rejected the takeoff after becoming airborne and re-landed on the runway - running off the end of the runway at 10 knots and burying a couple of tires in the mud?
By your logic, because the aircraft was recoverable and undamaged - his option was safer (ie the end justifies the means). By my logic, the aircraft may have needed a tow and a new nose wheel leg, but while there was minor damage and recovery problems, the safety of the passengers was much more likely to be maintained.
I'm not having a go at the guy personally, because I think CASA have failed him. Somehow he has completed the CASA day VFR syllabus and their CPL test and come out the other side with no appreciation of the danger in flying around for two minutes at zero feet, banked heavily with the stall warning going off. The system and the training have failed here.
As for aircraft recoverability, who gives a
? It's simply not our problem, and it's no different to multi-engine pilots who suffer an engine failure and fly over suitable aerodromes in an attempt to get the aircraft back to home base.
If you want another example of taking the safest action vs. outcome, are you familiar with the Whyalla Airlines PA31 crash? After suffering the first engine failure (over land, and near some suitable aerodromes), the pilot elected to fly out over water in an attempt to get the aircraft to the airline's home base in Whyalla (after being previously chastised for landing away from base previously).
By your logic Checkboard, had he been successful and the aircraft landed safely without damage or recovery costs, he took the best option at the time it occurred. As it turns out, he definitely took the wrong option - because out over water, the second engine cooked in an attempt to reach Whyalla & everyone died.
If you want to continue this discussion on PM Checkboard, please feel free. But please don't try to argue that the ends justifies the means in this case, because it certainly does not.
Pure dumb luck as the end result has no place in encouraging fundamentally poor decision making and TEM.