SASless, thank you for your post taking the time and effort to attempt to decypher previous comments made by Double Bogey. You are a gentleman.
Originally Posted by
DOUBLE BOGEY
Peter Gillies
STATEMENT - stated that the unrecoverable NR happens at a certain value from nominal.
MOTIVATION - to help pilots realise just how little time available and the best source of energy to recover - the flare. He hopes this might save someone's life.
Test Pilots
STATEMENT - The Test pilots pop up to discredit Peters claim and state that almost twice as much time is available and back up this claim with lots of data. Read JDs post again. It specifically states Peter is wrong!
MOTIVATION
?????
I find the basis for this comparison to be somewhat dysfunctional.
A statement was made by one person and a counter statement made by another. Both are entitled to express their view. What is more, both these perspectives would appear to have originated from the personal experiences of each individual and, so it would seem, each of them is willing to stand by their statements.
If John Dixon states that during the course of his test flying he has encountered Nr values in the 80's range, then he is simply conveying the facts of his experience.
The facts and the truth should never be discouraged.
Professional pilots are meant to be trained so that they will consistently deliver their duty of flying - with skill, discipline and accuracy. If, by making a pilot aware that there
may be greater room for manoeuvre in certain emergency situations, his response is immediately to attempt to flout the prescriptions of the RFM, then we are no longer talking about a professional but a rebel and a cowboy, in other words, a non-professional.
John Dixon's relaying of his personal test flying experience was and is not (as far as I understand it) an invitation to depart from the parameters published by the manufacturer and I find suggestions to that effect to be fallacious.