Originally Posted by
noflynomore
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.
That makes no sense at all.
The only possible reason for a captain to even contemplate powering the aircraft back off the grass onto the taxiway would be that he/she intended to go flying.
If I had been a passenger on board during that manoeuvre, I'd have been heading for the exit PDQ.