SWISS: pilot fired for criticism
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lalaland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
Aha, so now you are calling it a "derated" engine. Since when do you derate/flex one engine only...? 
Using derated (flex) thrust (even if it's all you can get from one engine) is nothing new. Weights are adjusted to fit the temperature/field length/obstacle/engine inop conditions that prevail at the time.
...#2 engine on one aircraft would not develop rated thrust.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WDreaming,
You don't dear boy, all of 'em.
In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM.
Haven't flown a twin, so cannot speak about those.
Only a 3/4 engine heavy jet guy.
Although....been asked to fly a GIV, fancy clocks in those.
You don't dear boy, all of 'em.
In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM.
Haven't flown a twin, so cannot speak about those.
Only a 3/4 engine heavy jet guy.
Although....been asked to fly a GIV, fancy clocks in those.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When operating in 3rd world environments you expect to find standards like 411A's, but its a sad state of affairs when a company like Swiss...which once had an untouchable reputation...is now dragged down to this level.
But that is what happens when a few bean counters lose the run of themselves and are given the lead by the likes of him.
I hope that the Swiss pilots union can see beyond any petty issues of nationality (if thats truly whats going on in their minds) and realise that if they don't defend each and every member against summary dismissal then it won't be long before those left behind will be living in fear of a similiar fate.
The only constraint on the nuts in charge of some companies is the pilots, who have the backbone to say STOP when necessary, and where they are empowered to do so by a Professional Association which will back them to the hilt.
When someone like 411A finally splatters himself and his passengers all over the landscape...try finding the managers and beancounters who helped him do it. You won't see them for dust.
411A, go teach your granny to suck eggs.
But that is what happens when a few bean counters lose the run of themselves and are given the lead by the likes of him.
I hope that the Swiss pilots union can see beyond any petty issues of nationality (if thats truly whats going on in their minds) and realise that if they don't defend each and every member against summary dismissal then it won't be long before those left behind will be living in fear of a similiar fate.
The only constraint on the nuts in charge of some companies is the pilots, who have the backbone to say STOP when necessary, and where they are empowered to do so by a Professional Association which will back them to the hilt.
When someone like 411A finally splatters himself and his passengers all over the landscape...try finding the managers and beancounters who helped him do it. You won't see them for dust.
411A, go teach your granny to suck eggs.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Perhaps there is real ignorance of P charts, and their applications on the part of 411A, who perhaps UNKNOWINGLY was suckered in to taking an unserviceable aircraft on a revenue flight.
Had he had an accident, he - along with the other cockpit crew members - would have had their licences pulled, and the insurance companies involved (if any were, in what sounds like a shonky operation) would not have accepted liabilty.
Your ignorance of performance is highlighted, 411A when you post sentences such as"Derated thrust for example.
When used properly... " - the FACT being that YOU did NOT use "de-rated thrust"! You may have superficially applied what you guessed the de-rate may have been, however you were operating a degraded performance engine, the RELIABILITY of which was extremely suspect.
And again, 411A you trip over your own feet when, in response to Wanula Dreaming's question of using de-rated/flexi thrust, your response is, "In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM."
In these special cases, the aircraft and engine manufacturers produce INDIVIDUAL P-charts, SPECIFIC to that operation only, for engines operating to known standards.
The situation which you admit to, in which you KNOWINGLY placed the lives of ALL on board at risk, bears NO resemblance to what you state above - which leads me to believe that perhaps you are GENUINELY ignorant of aircraft performance, 411A.
No-one of sane mind would admit - and then further, try to defend - the actions you have here, 411A.
Had he had an accident, he - along with the other cockpit crew members - would have had their licences pulled, and the insurance companies involved (if any were, in what sounds like a shonky operation) would not have accepted liabilty.
Your ignorance of performance is highlighted, 411A when you post sentences such as"Derated thrust for example.
When used properly... " - the FACT being that YOU did NOT use "de-rated thrust"! You may have superficially applied what you guessed the de-rate may have been, however you were operating a degraded performance engine, the RELIABILITY of which was extremely suspect.
And again, 411A you trip over your own feet when, in response to Wanula Dreaming's question of using de-rated/flexi thrust, your response is, "In fact, done all the time when engine intermix is used, in accordance with the AFM."
In these special cases, the aircraft and engine manufacturers produce INDIVIDUAL P-charts, SPECIFIC to that operation only, for engines operating to known standards.
The situation which you admit to, in which you KNOWINGLY placed the lives of ALL on board at risk, bears NO resemblance to what you state above - which leads me to believe that perhaps you are GENUINELY ignorant of aircraft performance, 411A.
No-one of sane mind would admit - and then further, try to defend - the actions you have here, 411A.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Around the World
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if in 411A's case the engine was limited to a certain EPR or N1 setting, than you could use to my understanding indeed the performance charts to adjust your takeoff weight accordingly.
Have you haver hold a Jepperson Performance charts in your hand? If so, than it should be clear, what 411A was talking about. You can use derated thrust or Flex Thrust if circumstances and performances permits. Means: if your takeoff weight is below the Climb- or Runway limitation. You use the difference in weight to determine the amount of thrust (EPR setting) which can be reduced. That caters also for the case of an engine failure.
Our SOPs says in case of engine failure at V1: no action below acceleration altitude. Means: you don't touch anything. after that you set max con thrust, which is most probably lower than your derated thrust anyway.
So if 411A calculates the weight which he can safely lift with the EPR setting available (mostly the performance charts in conjuntion with SOPs give a greater saftey margin anyway) it makes perfectly sense to me.
Or do you do every Take Off with Full Thrust? Don't think so.
Have you haver hold a Jepperson Performance charts in your hand? If so, than it should be clear, what 411A was talking about. You can use derated thrust or Flex Thrust if circumstances and performances permits. Means: if your takeoff weight is below the Climb- or Runway limitation. You use the difference in weight to determine the amount of thrust (EPR setting) which can be reduced. That caters also for the case of an engine failure.
Our SOPs says in case of engine failure at V1: no action below acceleration altitude. Means: you don't touch anything. after that you set max con thrust, which is most probably lower than your derated thrust anyway.
So if 411A calculates the weight which he can safely lift with the EPR setting available (mostly the performance charts in conjuntion with SOPs give a greater saftey margin anyway) it makes perfectly sense to me.
Or do you do every Take Off with Full Thrust? Don't think so.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All actions accomplished in accordance with the graphs/performance data in the specific aircraft AFM, Kaptin M, something i'm sure by your comments, you are ignorant of...
Oddly, the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) was onboard, and he did the paperwork. Very knowledgeable fellow, manufacturer trained in the specific aircraft type.
............
In the case of Swiss, suspect that the infighting of the flight crews/management will be to the detriment of all.
A rather sad state of affairs.
Oddly, the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) was onboard, and he did the paperwork. Very knowledgeable fellow, manufacturer trained in the specific aircraft type.
............
In the case of Swiss, suspect that the infighting of the flight crews/management will be to the detriment of all.
A rather sad state of affairs.
411a,
You're pushing it up hill I'm afraid.
The fact that a de-rated takeoff can be made doesn't mean that you can dispatch an aircraft which doesn't have
RATED THRUST AVAILABLE
It's kinda like the life rafts. You may have no intention of using it, but it is a requirement to have it.
If you dispatched with an engine not capable of rated thrust, your actions were as un-professtional as others here are stating. If these are the standards you intend to impose on your new workforce, thank god you're carrying freight and not human cargo.
You're pushing it up hill I'm afraid.
The fact that a de-rated takeoff can be made doesn't mean that you can dispatch an aircraft which doesn't have
RATED THRUST AVAILABLE
It's kinda like the life rafts. You may have no intention of using it, but it is a requirement to have it.
If you dispatched with an engine not capable of rated thrust, your actions were as un-professtional as others here are stating. If these are the standards you intend to impose on your new workforce, thank god you're carrying freight and not human cargo.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Wizofoz, quite wrong.
The regulations in use permitted same, consistant with performance limitations and airfield temperature.
No requirement to have more thrust available than meets those conditions. Nice to have of course, but not specifically required.
All clearly spelled out in the AFM, and approved by the regulatory authority concerned.
This is for 3/4 engine aircraft, don't know about twins, as I didn't fly those.
The regulations in use permitted same, consistant with performance limitations and airfield temperature.
No requirement to have more thrust available than meets those conditions. Nice to have of course, but not specifically required.
All clearly spelled out in the AFM, and approved by the regulatory authority concerned.
This is for 3/4 engine aircraft, don't know about twins, as I didn't fly those.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
But hang on a minute, 411A (I think your amnesia may be playing tricks with you, again), in your original post on this matter you boasted, "- "After many complaints and no action.......they fixed the engine.".
If the company had gone to the trouble and expense to have the engine tested, to determine its capability, and then have charts drawn up predicated on the tests, why would they bother to "fix" the engine?
Fact is, 411A, you made an admission earlier on that you took an aircraft with a sick engine on a flight. You are now trying to cover your ass.
I think you speak with forked tongue, 411, and that you`re making it up as you go along.
If the company had gone to the trouble and expense to have the engine tested, to determine its capability, and then have charts drawn up predicated on the tests, why would they bother to "fix" the engine?
Fact is, 411A, you made an admission earlier on that you took an aircraft with a sick engine on a flight. You are now trying to cover your ass.
I think you speak with forked tongue, 411, and that you`re making it up as you go along.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the topic
The following is a link to an article in the Swiss media ( in French ) that may provide some further light on the firing:
http://www.lematin.ch/nwmatinhome/nw...un_pilote.html
The Swiss pilots union board has called the dismissal illegal and has promptly provided legal support. The fired pilot via the union's designated lawyer has initiated action and is waiting for a first response from Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS).
As other contributors have noted, the driiver was allegedly dismissed without notice or discussion, and without reference to the union, for making damaging character statements directed at SWISS management. These statements were made on the pilot union internet discussion forum under a section/sub forum called: "Ask the Board".
It will be rather interesting to see what protection or rights individual pilot union members have in raising issues related to their welfare and directed against company, management or safety practices. The Swiss pilots union internet forum is an internal (intra union) facility and working tool. Its membership and use (viewing and posting) is only open to union members upon application, registration and then via password access. Postings can be made anonymously with psuedonym or with immediate recognition by use of company staff designated alpha code. It would appear that this driver stupidly took the open and transparent option instead of hiding behind anonymity within this closed union forum.
Anyone care to comment on Swiss laws on libel or defamation? Perhaps if SWISS management feel aggrieved they would be entitled to take civil action against the dismissed pilot and possibly the union subject to the union forum's rules and conditions for use, disclaimers etc.?
http://www.lematin.ch/nwmatinhome/nw...un_pilote.html
The Swiss pilots union board has called the dismissal illegal and has promptly provided legal support. The fired pilot via the union's designated lawyer has initiated action and is waiting for a first response from Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS).
As other contributors have noted, the driiver was allegedly dismissed without notice or discussion, and without reference to the union, for making damaging character statements directed at SWISS management. These statements were made on the pilot union internet discussion forum under a section/sub forum called: "Ask the Board".
It will be rather interesting to see what protection or rights individual pilot union members have in raising issues related to their welfare and directed against company, management or safety practices. The Swiss pilots union internet forum is an internal (intra union) facility and working tool. Its membership and use (viewing and posting) is only open to union members upon application, registration and then via password access. Postings can be made anonymously with psuedonym or with immediate recognition by use of company staff designated alpha code. It would appear that this driver stupidly took the open and transparent option instead of hiding behind anonymity within this closed union forum.
Anyone care to comment on Swiss laws on libel or defamation? Perhaps if SWISS management feel aggrieved they would be entitled to take civil action against the dismissed pilot and possibly the union subject to the union forum's rules and conditions for use, disclaimers etc.?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiccups, your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Not only can they dismiss the individual concerned, but if there was a proven 'libel' its quite likely they may sue the union and/or the individuals in charge of maintaining the BB as plaintiffs in that libel action. I hope they are fully indemnified!
There is often a dilemma with these websites whereby certain managers who are also nominally 'union members' retain full rights to access the union BB.
In my own company it is well known by all that the union BB content is downloaded on a daily basis by one such manager and passed 'upstairs' to senior management for review. This fact acts as a form of intimidation on the members, most of whom are afraid to make any kind of comment in case they raise their 'profile' on the management radar (our website does not allow anonymous posting).
In my view anyone gaining a management post ought to be required to resign from the union (a dog cannot have two masters) or at the very least should be blocked from any legal right to access the union BB. It won't necessarily stop the spying and tattle telling, but it can certainly make it less easy for the traitors in our midst.
There is often a dilemma with these websites whereby certain managers who are also nominally 'union members' retain full rights to access the union BB.
In my own company it is well known by all that the union BB content is downloaded on a daily basis by one such manager and passed 'upstairs' to senior management for review. This fact acts as a form of intimidation on the members, most of whom are afraid to make any kind of comment in case they raise their 'profile' on the management radar (our website does not allow anonymous posting).
In my view anyone gaining a management post ought to be required to resign from the union (a dog cannot have two masters) or at the very least should be blocked from any legal right to access the union BB. It won't necessarily stop the spying and tattle telling, but it can certainly make it less easy for the traitors in our midst.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It never ceases to amaze me how a topic involving 411A doesnt just creep in another direction, but goes there at full throttle!!!!! 
Kaptain M, the procedure that 411 is talking about involves knowing that one engine is only capable of producing an EPR which is below maximum, i would guess that they then entered the EPR chart to find the corresponding temperature, this temperature would then be used as an Assumed Temperature for the takeoff weight, hence the requirement for the enroute technical stop. The complete takeoff calculation would be based on the lower EPR, there is no requirement for the crew to use maximum takeoff power following an engine failure.
Technically this is a procedure which we use everyday..... HOWEVER, this is the first time that i have heard of someone using it because of a sick engine. From a legal point of view, he based his takeoff using a derated thrust, which is perfectly legal.
Now would you please allow this topic to get back to the subject of SWISS.
Mutt.
Kaptain M, the procedure that 411 is talking about involves knowing that one engine is only capable of producing an EPR which is below maximum, i would guess that they then entered the EPR chart to find the corresponding temperature, this temperature would then be used as an Assumed Temperature for the takeoff weight, hence the requirement for the enroute technical stop. The complete takeoff calculation would be based on the lower EPR, there is no requirement for the crew to use maximum takeoff power following an engine failure.
Technically this is a procedure which we use everyday..... HOWEVER, this is the first time that i have heard of someone using it because of a sick engine. From a legal point of view, he based his takeoff using a derated thrust, which is perfectly legal.
Now would you please allow this topic to get back to the subject of SWISS.
Mutt.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Please tell me the name of this "procedure", mutt.
You are talking, perhaps, of a procedure where engines are specifically de-rated to a KNOWN value.
This was NOT the scenario in 411A's case.
The situation 411A describes would mean that the manufacturer would need to produce 3-engined take-off charts for 4-engined aircraft, or 2-engined P charts for 3-engined a/c.
To the best of my knowledge, there ain't no such animal in existence, but 411A in conjunction with "the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) " apparently decided between themselves that as the sick engine USUALLY delivered no less than say 80% T/O thrust, that that would be okay to use for their illegal flight.
"Hi-ho Silver"......talk about a cowboy operation!!
You are talking, perhaps, of a procedure where engines are specifically de-rated to a KNOWN value.
This was NOT the scenario in 411A's case.
The situation 411A describes would mean that the manufacturer would need to produce 3-engined take-off charts for 4-engined aircraft, or 2-engined P charts for 3-engined a/c.
To the best of my knowledge, there ain't no such animal in existence, but 411A in conjunction with "the asst chief Flight Engineer (ex CX) " apparently decided between themselves that as the sick engine USUALLY delivered no less than say 80% T/O thrust, that that would be okay to use for their illegal flight.
"Hi-ho Silver"......talk about a cowboy operation!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mutt, you should take your own advice and stick to the topic. Thats what I've tried doing, but you insist on digressing...so since you insist...here we go again, once more with feeling.
A) Flex (or reduced thrust) take offs are legal and common.
B) Taking off with an engine with a technical problem is neither legal nor common (IMHO).
Trying to rationalise (B) by applying (A) is self delusion.
There may have been some very good and clear reason why the engine was not capable of producing full rated thrust, but he doesn't tell us that. All he says is it couldn't. Given that bald fact any sensible pilot would think to themselves 'Why Not?'. Logically he would conclude that the engine has a technical/mechanical problem. That technical/mechanical problem might be trivial...or it might be catastrophic in nature (e.g. a potential for uncontained failure or fire).
Given the lack of facts about the problem, only a dumb shmuck or management toadie would put his life and licence on the line by opting to fly the thing.
Clear enough?
If you persist I can give you a detailed example of a lethal fatal accident caused by exactly this kind of engine indication symptom.
A) Flex (or reduced thrust) take offs are legal and common.
B) Taking off with an engine with a technical problem is neither legal nor common (IMHO).
Trying to rationalise (B) by applying (A) is self delusion.
There may have been some very good and clear reason why the engine was not capable of producing full rated thrust, but he doesn't tell us that. All he says is it couldn't. Given that bald fact any sensible pilot would think to themselves 'Why Not?'. Logically he would conclude that the engine has a technical/mechanical problem. That technical/mechanical problem might be trivial...or it might be catastrophic in nature (e.g. a potential for uncontained failure or fire).
Given the lack of facts about the problem, only a dumb shmuck or management toadie would put his life and licence on the line by opting to fly the thing.
Clear enough?
If you persist I can give you a detailed example of a lethal fatal accident caused by exactly this kind of engine indication symptom.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M
Hmm, just to correct a statement about take off charts. I remember that we used to have three engine T/O charts for four engine aircraft (DC-8/ Viscount etc) and two engine charts for three engine aircraft. (B-727).
It used to be a requirement for Captains to demonstrate this skill on checking out on the equipment. Only management pilots performed this procedure later because line pilots considered it to risky.
These charts were used when ferrying engine out aircraft to a suitable maintenance base and were off course non-revenue flights.
Cheers
Hmm, just to correct a statement about take off charts. I remember that we used to have three engine T/O charts for four engine aircraft (DC-8/ Viscount etc) and two engine charts for three engine aircraft. (B-727).
It used to be a requirement for Captains to demonstrate this skill on checking out on the equipment. Only management pilots performed this procedure later because line pilots considered it to risky.
These charts were used when ferrying engine out aircraft to a suitable maintenance base and were off course non-revenue flights.
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mid Atlantic
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr...Tan, he said he had a load of pax. 360 of them. Yes we've all heard of reduced thrust takeoffs, and yes we've all heard of engine out ferry flights. Any other excuses to offer?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all seem to be forgetting one little thing.
What did the MEL/MMEL say?
If the book says it's OK and there's a procedure, then fair enough, you can go.
If it says nothing...you're in uncharted territory. Dangerous.
If it BANS takeoff....dohhhh! You don't go!
What did the MEL/MMEL say?
If the book says it's OK and there's a procedure, then fair enough, you can go.
If it says nothing...you're in uncharted territory. Dangerous.
If it BANS takeoff....dohhhh! You don't go!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref 411a,
The man is an arrogant fool, always was. His departure, from the airline where he is presumably taking this quote from, was made unavoidable given his attitude and stupidity.They made the obvious choice and dumped him at the earlyst opportunity. I know I was there!
411a it is just this type of garbage and ignorance which has got you where you are, basically unemployed and unemployable. Except of course in la la pipe dream land, where you are a legend only to yourself.
In ref to your not flying aircraft anymore, this is definetly a good thing, judging by your total lack of appreciation for very basic performance principles and saftey of flight issues.
No aircraft in the world is presumed to be within AFM limitations if it is unable to generate full rated power as stated in the perf man for Alt.Temp. limits. This IS the "basis" for being able to do a derate, being that in the "event"..then you have the margin of full / GA thrust available after V2 is reached to meet your first second and third segment criterea "safely".
Firstly not knowing how much thrust was truely available negates this totally (idiot). Secondly the very fact that the engine was unable to generate the required full thrust value indicates a verifiable reliability issue with that engine. (dangerous idiot)
The fact that the aircraft is "able" to depart on flex or derate is neither here nor there, as your saftey margin is not there!
Your antics at air ice cream where well know and not appreciated by anyone, which is why your contract was never and will never be renewed.
I for one do not wish you well in any of your aviation endeavours as you are a total fruit cake and a dangerous one at that.
Please note any future employer or any one who has anything to do with this maniac that this opinion in well versed by anyone who knows this moron.
The man is an arrogant fool, always was. His departure, from the airline where he is presumably taking this quote from, was made unavoidable given his attitude and stupidity.They made the obvious choice and dumped him at the earlyst opportunity. I know I was there!
411a it is just this type of garbage and ignorance which has got you where you are, basically unemployed and unemployable. Except of course in la la pipe dream land, where you are a legend only to yourself.
In ref to your not flying aircraft anymore, this is definetly a good thing, judging by your total lack of appreciation for very basic performance principles and saftey of flight issues.
No aircraft in the world is presumed to be within AFM limitations if it is unable to generate full rated power as stated in the perf man for Alt.Temp. limits. This IS the "basis" for being able to do a derate, being that in the "event"..then you have the margin of full / GA thrust available after V2 is reached to meet your first second and third segment criterea "safely".
Firstly not knowing how much thrust was truely available negates this totally (idiot). Secondly the very fact that the engine was unable to generate the required full thrust value indicates a verifiable reliability issue with that engine. (dangerous idiot)
The fact that the aircraft is "able" to depart on flex or derate is neither here nor there, as your saftey margin is not there!
Your antics at air ice cream where well know and not appreciated by anyone, which is why your contract was never and will never be renewed.
I for one do not wish you well in any of your aviation endeavours as you are a total fruit cake and a dangerous one at that.
Please note any future employer or any one who has anything to do with this maniac that this opinion in well versed by anyone who knows this moron.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr..Idunno I wasn't commenting on the rights or wrongs of the discussion but merely correcting a misconception concerning a statement that was made.
You really should get out more...
You really should get out more...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, here comes Flybob again, harbouring that long held resentment about his so called 'check/training experience' which the said company found to be without merit.
Nothing more can be said about that...sorry sport, didn't fly then, and won't now.
Mutt clearly stated the procedure used, and all quite legal (as pointed out) in accordance with AFM documentation.
The fact that some don't know about the procedure used, is irrelevant. Also not relevant is whether this particular procedure is used by others (it is, as Mutt pointed out), as conformity with other companies/regulatory authorities approval of procedures has no bearing on this particular flight.
The concerned regulatory authority approved, the company approved, and the pilots (except perhaps Flybob) approved.
Perhaps a few were too lazy
to read the book, let alone understand same.
Nothing more can be said about that...sorry sport, didn't fly then, and won't now.
Mutt clearly stated the procedure used, and all quite legal (as pointed out) in accordance with AFM documentation.
The fact that some don't know about the procedure used, is irrelevant. Also not relevant is whether this particular procedure is used by others (it is, as Mutt pointed out), as conformity with other companies/regulatory authorities approval of procedures has no bearing on this particular flight.
The concerned regulatory authority approved, the company approved, and the pilots (except perhaps Flybob) approved.
Perhaps a few were too lazy
to read the book, let alone understand same.