Has this set some kind of record for thread-drift?

It’s a good one, that’s for sure.
But if it educates just one pilot, it’s well worth it.

And we’ve only just scratched the surface of the lighties’ performance limitations the manuals do their best to gloss over.

Thread drift perhaps, but kind of logical. It started by questioning whether the advertised job experience level was low to be poling a jet around in Australia's rarefied atmosphere. Then the discussion morphed into the relative merits of jet time versus "hardball" GA time. Someone suggested that if a pilot found single pilot IFR winter operations in North America "hardball" they were in the wrong profession.
That same person attempted to compare operating the B777 with a C421 to indicate that B777 pilots faced similarly marginal performance situations. No doubt that in some places big jets do operate with small margins for error, but its a tenuous argument.
When it comes to selecting pilots, a solid GA background can be every bit as useful as military or airline time. Put a good GA pilot in the right hand seat of a jet, give them proper training, and within 500 hours you'd think they had been flying the thing for years.
For the sake of young people with aviation dreams today, I only hope that one day soon Ausralian employers will accept that reality.

As a non-Australian, every now and then I drop by the Pprune Australian Forums to witness the Aussie Willy-waving comedy show that invariably appears on a lot of threads.
I will not leave disappointed with this visit.🤣🤪👍

Austranauts for a reason. When the flying environment is that benign, you can only measure your member by knowing regulations that are so archaic and over the top.

Mods, in just three posts we have progressed from mild thread drift to penis envy to a classic non sequitur.
Unless the next post pulls it back onto subject, I suggest lock it. Pilots who lack the wit to differentiate robust debate from dick swinging do Pprune and its professional (and genuine newbie) contributors a disservice. As for those prone to the non sequitur, this is an indication of social dysfunction or ADHD. Medication is available.
If they can't offer anything intelligent they should p!ss off back to their inane TwitFaceTok forums or seek help.
To be associated in any way with these intellectual misfits - as Effie would say "how embarrassment".

As an ozmate, it's even funnier listening to your overseas mates recount their Australian stories like 'They would have beat us to the moon but they're still briefing the approach'

Mach E, why the angst? This forum is far from professional and is not far off TwitFaceTok. Why do we have to run to the mods to close, c'mon man.

Lovely response

At least that is funny and pertinent to the way we operate in this sunny clime.
For non professional pottymouths with penis fixation and no agenda beyond derailing discussion PPrune has a Jetblast forum.

If my guess is correct - Nothing like a bored Australian working in Asia to add nothing of merit to a thread? :hmm:

If it's me you're talking about, (bored Australian.........), not quite correct. The adding nothing of merit bit, 100% correct. I often state that I add very little to a thread. I could, if I wanted to, but the bonafides of most on here are dubious, at best. How can you have a serious conversation when you can't trust those bonafides. So I take the piss most of the time. But occasionally, just occasionally, I'm pretty smack on.

Ahh...bugger it - now that this thread is completely off the rails, why not add to the fun.
From ‘Its hard to be humble’ by Mac Davis:
"Well I could have lotsa friends if I wanted
But then I wouldn't stand out from the crowd
Some folks say that I'm egotistical
Hell, I don't even know what that means
I guess it has something to do with the way
That I fill out my skin tight blue jeans"

Now would that be the skin tight blue jeans, with a pair of footy sox tucked into your jocks as well?

I do like the comparison of Cessna 400 series to 777, it is so accurate. I mean the Cessna 421 for instance has had 24 accidents following engine failure, 12 involving fatalities. Now how many 777 have been lost due to a single engine failure, I reckon quite a few failures have happened including some on take-off roll, some with spectacular sparks and flames. But I'm pretty sure they all climbed away quite easily and returned to land after a few checks. As said before there seams to be a disconnect in education if you think the certification of these two aircraft is mildly related. Also the 15/35/50 ft clearance requirements are before you adjust for margins, but I'm sure you know that. A C421 wouldn't even have the performance on one engine to apply a margin. I wonder how many C400 (or any other piston twin) pilots would be told 'sit on their hands' following an engine failure after take-off to assess fully what is happening.

The ‘sit on your hands’ ethos was being taught in jet transport operations as far back as the 1970’s.
My first experience in real simulators was the BAC 1-11. After the DC 3 it was quite a culture shock.
When we got to the engine failure session, the crusty old Pommy TRE advised me that the safest way to deal with engine failure was to get the gear up and immediately engage the autopilot, sit on hands, have a good look around and then very SLOWLY do the fire or failure drill. Quite different to how we had been brought up on pistons to get the crook engine feathered Right. Bloody. Now.
With advances in automation, I suspect the B777 systems take care of things even better than the old BAC 1-11 did.
I never got operational on the 1-11 due to the airline deferring delivery of one airframe. Compensation prize was left seat HS 748. Another easy to fly machine, with auto feather, nice control harmony and decent ergonomics that allowed one to sit on hands.
Returning to the original question; with our blue skies and sun constantly beating down on our heads, Australian operators may finally be realising all those moon landings are not really necessary.

No sitting on hands with the UA1175 777 engine failure, roll control was such that the Captain very briefly considered completing the 360° roll to get back to level flight, unable to maintain altitude he just made it into Honolulu, a ditching would have been necessary had the failure occurred earlier, perhaps a few moon landings may not be a bad idea. ;)

Point taken. If it can go wrong, it will.
10 hours in a Pitts as part of the CPL syllabus would be a worthwhile addition, even if it means cutting out some of the cross country or other easy stuff.
The Captain's prior experience in aeros went a long way to saving what would have been unrecoverable for some pilots.
Upset recovery now features large in new simulator programs, but of course doesn't replicate actually hanging upside down like a fruitbat.

The 'Sit on your hands' advice is not in regard to flying the aircraft, its about not over-reacting to indications and jumping to conclusions. Obviously if the AP is handling it, no issue, if not the PF will have their hands full, but last thing you want is the PM flinging switches, knobs and levers before they've assessed what is actually happening. As JT said earlier there are many scenarios that could occur outside of certification standards and you deal with them as they happen, but a bog standard engine failure with no severe damage is going to be almost routine for a jet crew. The other stuff should be rare if the aircraft is well maintained and so on.