So … which is it? "The runway is kept in visual contact" … or … "you will not be able to fly with reference to the runway" … ? You can do one or the other … but I would submit … not both at the same time.
I can indeed have both:
Fly (
aviate) is maintaining altitude, altitude and speed. Or the longwinded version
:
Every time you, as a pilot, move a control surface, make a power adjustment, or anything that will affect the existing condition of the airplane (and I use the term “condition” to mean the airplane’s attitude, altitude, airspeed, angle-of-attack, direction of flight, configuration, energy state, etc.), AND you should know that what you are doing is correct and proper to regain or maintain the airplane condition that YOU desire and/or the condition you want for the airplane in the next second … application by application.
You can't do that looking over your shoulder. Especially with mountains, strong wind and turbulence, your would have to work to keep the aircraft on the desired path, that may be with a very limited margin defined by MDA/cloudbase - being too close to do a 180 and too far to keep the runway or associated lights in sight. On a dark, poor vis, rainy night, I would even recommend you fly (aviate) with reference to your ADI, as previously described a few posts back. Not looking out the window for the nearest MacDonald.
Keeping the runway in sight is
navigate. To rely on that sight alone for navigation, with all associated optical illusions due to darkness, rain, unusual altitude, poor runway lightning seen from an angle etc., I maintain is reckless.
So … am I to understand that when you post something, the motivation is pure and contains heartfelt comments from a professional aviator … but when someone like me posts something it can only be “an opportunity to flash my quite sorry (and) common CV?
I wrote because the subject interested me. And, frankly, there is an egoistical reason for all me to post on this forum too - my own benefit of being forced to look things up and refreshing my memory (like where is what exactly written).
You on the other hand jumped in with a completely off-topic post where you are trying to assert yourself as some master, who discovered a new trend before anyone else. There after, again "the master", is telling us everything we do is wrong and continue to "back up" your argument with a CV that is (sorry to say) not that particular extraordinary. It usually comes with growing older that you did a lot of "stuff".
Previous in my career I flew with 20,000 hour Captains, that didn't know the alternate planning minima and could handfly if their life depended on it (certainly not without the FD). So I learned that doing stuff for a long time is no guarantee of competence. In fact I have the experience that the less people feel they need to assert themselves, usually the more competent they are....
P.s.
I wasn't complementing your writing style, being clear, concise and to the point is something to admire. And "quotation marks" around a word means that it shouldn't be taken literal, that in fact the writer means something else than the typical meaning of the word or as a plain expression of irony.