You might disagree - and that's fine - but can we play the ball and not the player, please ?
Certainly.
I reacted to the OP condescending tone on the rest of us...
Well, that didn't take long, did it? And so typical of those well known breed of cynics on Pprune who resort to sneering sarcasm rather than shut up if you have nothing to offer but an ill-mannered reposte. Readers would prefer a reasoned line of professional discussion - not sarcasm which is the lowest from of wit.
Nothing personal,id rather have a young ccaptain who knows how to do a fuel conversion calculation,who checks his fuel regularly and who doesnt have to use his unskilled pilotage rather than an older one who is obviously praised here for his skills but who obviously put his entire aircraft in jeopardy.
How do you figure this was due to pilot neglect? The A/C is released with the fuel gages deferred, he is brought paperwork that shows the correct fuel load was on the airplane (pounds instead of kilos, but nowhere in the paperwork it said that) I just don't see as to how he neglected to do his job????
Do you really think running an airliner out of fuel causing dual flame out would happen without any negligence from the crew??
I have nothing against the OP,just that this particular example doesnt fit the OP obvious will to display a lack of airmanship of this new generation he seems to despise.
Meaculpa if im mistaken.
The hudson river on the other hand showed amazing airmanship,skills and some luck.
There is a balance between the limited practice/training time available and the list of mandatory and "nice to do" items. Realistically, when choosing scenarios, you have to take into account the probability of something actually happening in real life as well as the intrinsic value of that exercise. Current trends suggest that it would be much more effective to concentrate on things like unreliable airspeed or CFIT than having all your engines fail...
Agree.