SAS - actually NO I do not see the wrongness of my posts apart from a misinterpretation of John Eacotts intent.
When very qualified people start posting complex explanations in direct contradiction to what is clearly, I mean very clearly, sensible guidance that is supported by the RFM, it makes me wonder of the motivation of such.
If its just to demonstrate to us mere mortals how little we all really know it is unforgivable. In my view these kinds of statements can lead to pilots believing the bull****. A factor that cannot be ruled out in the Newfie crash.
SAS - you are temporarily blinded by your loyalty to SK. I understand that. However, in my view the Newfie crash would have been very different had they followed the guidance in their checklist. Why the P1 choose not too is a subject for debate but it does not actually matter. What matters s that we at least learn that inappropriate statements, made by influential people, can be severely misleading if believed and followed by the unwary.
In a total power loss the pilot has but seconds to react - do you agree?
If this is the case what possible merit is there in JD posting details that suggest he may have more time than we think??
Honestly I am willing to listen to any sensible argument to the contrary on both elements of my post!!
DB