Bigger balls than mine in this 139
That’s a few well-thrown sticks SASless. I wonder how many dogs will chase them.
Zero – Zero take-offs are for properly trained mil pilots in a mil environment. They are clearly illegal in pretty much any civilian flight environment. And beyond unacceptable in public transport. The Haughey Air accident a few years ago is a good example of where inadequately trained and practiced crew tried to do something that they should have let be.
My reference to stabilised flight refers to a flight configuration which is safe and, at least short-term, sustainable: Safe attitude, safe airspeed, climbing within performance limits. The aircraft doesn’t care about the groundspeed if it is capable of staying in the air.
I’m sure you will find plenty of support for the idea that excessive regulation and slavish adherence to rules does not make pilots or flying safer. But there is good too. The assumption of authority to take unnecessary risks on the customers’ behalf (with willing or unwilling passengers) is still widespread. I have seen a good number of colleagues fly profiles according to their habits rather than one prescribed by the manufacturer. The increased risk of discounting the possibility to reject clearly flying in the face of common sense.
As to sim training focusing on the wrong thing, that surely depends on your experience. This view doesn’t reflect mine at all. I find there is a good mix in current sim training between hand flying skills, proper use of automation, MCC and startle effects. But the quality of the food depends a lot on the restaurant you choose.
It is not yet known what happened in a certain accident in the Bahamas recently. But I would be very surprised if lack of training or discipline in flying a suitable profile, MCC and currency were not involved.
Unusually, this thread isn’t about a post-CFIT accident due to poor visibility, but a consensus that a safe (and defined) profile was correctly flown.
Zero – Zero take-offs are for properly trained mil pilots in a mil environment. They are clearly illegal in pretty much any civilian flight environment. And beyond unacceptable in public transport. The Haughey Air accident a few years ago is a good example of where inadequately trained and practiced crew tried to do something that they should have let be.
My reference to stabilised flight refers to a flight configuration which is safe and, at least short-term, sustainable: Safe attitude, safe airspeed, climbing within performance limits. The aircraft doesn’t care about the groundspeed if it is capable of staying in the air.
I’m sure you will find plenty of support for the idea that excessive regulation and slavish adherence to rules does not make pilots or flying safer. But there is good too. The assumption of authority to take unnecessary risks on the customers’ behalf (with willing or unwilling passengers) is still widespread. I have seen a good number of colleagues fly profiles according to their habits rather than one prescribed by the manufacturer. The increased risk of discounting the possibility to reject clearly flying in the face of common sense.
As to sim training focusing on the wrong thing, that surely depends on your experience. This view doesn’t reflect mine at all. I find there is a good mix in current sim training between hand flying skills, proper use of automation, MCC and startle effects. But the quality of the food depends a lot on the restaurant you choose.
It is not yet known what happened in a certain accident in the Bahamas recently. But I would be very surprised if lack of training or discipline in flying a suitable profile, MCC and currency were not involved.
Unusually, this thread isn’t about a post-CFIT accident due to poor visibility, but a consensus that a safe (and defined) profile was correctly flown.
