Originally Posted by Pace
I have a habit of taking discussions off on tangents
Never, really? I find that hard to believe.
In all seriousness, you do and you often do it so effectively that subsequent posts pick up your tangent and consequently argue your point as you have buried the original point.
Pace, I find it surprising that a man of your experience is disagreeing with the point made by BPF, so far your attempts to prove him wrong are actually supporting his argument.
Anyway to continue on your tangent, you do in fact raise an issue which, although aware of it, I have never actually given much proper consideration. So thanks for that.
The fact is that a failed engine is a failed engine (assuming it cannot be restarted) irrespective of whether pilot induced, or otherwise and that fact alone would dictate the need for a certain amount of training to deal with it.
I do think you have a valid point in that a partial failure could cause a greater workload/more decision making/confusion than a complete failure and consequently result in a worse outcome than would have been the case with a complete failure. However I think it is very subjective and in the absence of stats it
could equally be argued that that for every partial failure that has had an outcome worse than had the engine failed completely, there are 3 that the partial failure has given just enough to ensure the outcome was better than a complete failure.
A tangent worth going off on thanks, but I say again, it supports the argument that the current PFL training is somewhat lacking.
BB