SS , Re #2739 - yes, sort of, although it was about the #2712 post where I felt you & others were possibly posting red herrings? I wasn't meaning to criticise, just felt that the splitting of hairs over (possibly critical in this case) 20kgs MLA/ between different operators did not reflect the critically important points a) to d) that I then offered in my post #2727
I usually value your posts and am happy to apologise if you felt niggled.
Re those who are taking me to task over my "Optional" comment re CRM, & TFOs as "quasi-crew". To that end, I refer all to my honourable colleague
SASless in #2743, as his ethos is as near identical to mine as makes no difference. I would also echo his comments in #2736 - I really don't see any benefit in expanding further, with the exception of commenting on -
....and not necessarily an approved or recommended procedure
For those of us who regularly fly to low fuel states, we
do occasionally need to turn off transfer pumps, i.a.w. RFM. I am not advocating that the RFM should not be followed, just that UK,
Night, Police Ops
can follow the procedures to the letter without turning off BOTH pumps - it's systems knowledge that helps to determine which one & when, and CRM helps with the "why".
T-R #2740 - If you get the messages above, good. I have never implied that TFO system understanding/appreciation/knowledge is anything other than optional, but it could make the difference between a good & poor pilot decision. To dismiss a TFO comment in flight almost mirrors the actions of the pilots involved in the Kegworth/M1 737 accident - around which so much CRM is based. I am not, at any stage, implying that any blame should be placed on the "passengers", since the final decision/responsibility rests with the Captain/Crew - I'm just saying that including two brains with a bit of spare capacity (certainly in transit) can often improve processing power & decisions making for the benefit, and ultimately survival, of all.