The posts above are a fascinating cross-section of the way attitudes to a practical job have changed over the years. They are also a sad testament to the apparent inability of the modern generation in general to react correctly to an argument (in the philosophical sense) and who take any statement as a rigid declaration of absolutes, then extrapolate wildly adding further self -generated absolutes completely unmentioned in the original statement and come up - unsurprisingly - with an entirely spurious conclusion.
Who, anywhere, has suggested that high power was suggested as a means as getting off the grass? No one. Yet most of the anti posts seem to have assumed this with lurid assumptions of airframe damage due to flying mud and debris and apparently from the vast amounts of power being applied...
Well, it wasn't. Not by anyone, yet those who sensibly suggested trying to drive out of the mire are lambasted for just this.
Then the naysayers rant on about damage to engines and airframe by flying mud once taxiing and t/o recommences. Who, exactly, suggested high speed taxi and t/o after this event? No one. Even so, is this actually a realistic as opposed to web-theatrical scenario? I doubt it.
The assumption made by so many that trying to move it by judicious use of thrust (as any judicious Captain might - or might not do, having first ascertained the nature/depth of his being stuck) is not addressed, it being merely assumed that vast amounts of thrust would immediately be brutally and unthinkingly applied. Do these people not know the meaning of "Professionalism"? "Judgement"? "Scale"? I gather not.
And then they go on to assume that having got unstuck, if indeed that was the result taxi would be commenced at injudicious speeds risking debris ingestion (another unlikely assumption) and airframe damage (yet another...) And then try a t/o on gear "damaged" by sitting in some mud... Did they do a technical course on airframes? Do they have any idea what it takes to damage tough stuff like undercarriage? We know they did, but they hardly seem to appreciate the physical properties of their machines to the n'th degree that they can repeat the books, verbatim.
No one who suggested trying to drive out mentioned unthinking amounts of power, even less of taxiing and taking off before an inspection. Yet this is the universal assumption by those decrying the "power out" suggestion. Where do you all get these wild assumptions? After all, aren't Professional pilots supposed to work from facts, not assumptions?
Are there really no variations of grey in the rigidly black and white minds of the magenta liners (if I may be allowed such a complex metaphor)? Just because your gear is off the hard is not necessarily a reason to throw all common sense recovery methods out of the window, any more than it is a reason to assume the guy who does is going to unthinkingly apply TOGA power to achieve it.
Nor is it a reason to assume that he then canters down the taxiway and gets airborne. Perhaps he uses a judicious amount of power and if freed gets an inspection done first, but just about every post above decrying the "power-outers" seems to have assumed just this.
Where has common sense gone? Where has Airmanship gone?
Is it really the case that once the figurative magenta taxiway centreline has been missed the whole shebang comes to a complete and automatic "nuffink more to do wiv me mate" jobsworth handswashing, cancellation and "let the office get us out of this one now"?
Nary a recognition that a smidge of grey might just exist in the rigid black and white responses above.
What do these people do if the tug pushes their tyres back into 10' deep soft snow at Prague and then loses traction? Do you call the "office" 800 miles away for the girls there to come out with shovels because there is no magenta line visible or do you first see if it is possible to taxi out?
Heavens!
I weep for this industry.
Last edited by noflynomore; 2nd Jan 2017 at 22:30.