TheSmokingGnu writes:

So you admit that in expecting it, the pilots must necessarily feel it
(or rather, expect to feel it; want to feel it; know that they should
feel it; know that it should exist).

They want to feel it. They don't need it. It makes pilots comfortable,
especially those who dislike change. It makes them feel as if they are still
in control, even when they are not.

Then how can you say that it is not false?

I don't have to know why something is true just to know that it's true. I
know that some flowers are blue and others are red--it's definitely true--but
I don't know why.

Surface analysis of the NTSB database would seem to mete this out; last
year there were just 2 incidents in jets, while general aviation racked
up 25. However, without a more detailed report of accidents per flight
or per mile (or per capita), I would be hesitant to make such claims
with authority.

The NTSB database is pretty reliable.

Why not, if the purpose of the practice is to experience a loss of
meaningful power and to execute the proper diagnostics to the engine as
well as the correct emergency procedures?

Because an idle engine is not a stopped engine, as anyone who has experienced
an actual failure can attest.

Idling the engine would seem to be a perfect solution.

No, it just creates a false sense of security.

Which?

I've forgotten which models; presumably the more recent ones.

Surely an engineer would anticipate the failure of a computer system.

There are too many possible failure scenarios. Nobody, not even an engineer,
can anticpate them all. The ones that are not anticipated in the design will
generally produce catastrophic failures (in digital systems).

Heck, that's why we have triple-redundancy hydraulic systems (with
backup electrics, no less).

Mechanical systems are not digital. The catastrophic failures come from
software.

That same engineer would also surely see that using an active control
system (with a failure potential) is inferior to using plain old physics
(which has already been demonstrated on many other designs; why try to
fix what isn't broken)?

Sometimes engineers are seduced by the promise of better performance, to the
detriment of safety.

But the system in question here is not digital, nor is it controlled as
such by the fly-by-wire systems.

All modern fly-by-wire systems are digitally controlled, because they depend
on digital computers and software.

Dihedral in a wing uses physics (and a
helping hand from Mr. Daniel Bernoulli) to roll an aircraft level (or
more towards level), sans control inputs. Why would an engineer ignore
this time-tested approach to wing design in favor of an active (and
potentially failure-prone) system?

To improve performance. The usual reasoning is that prudent design for
default behavior is unnecessary because the computers can fix it all. This is
a very common error in engineering these days, and not just in aviation.

It's a bit like people who never learn to brake properly in wet conditions
because they expect the ABS to do it for them. The day the ABS fails comes as
a big surprise.

I think many assume that the presence of references provides a trail of
fact-checking and verification which is important when trying to assert
the validity of analysis and claims made in such academia.

That trail is useless if nobody follows it, and most people just assume that
the presence of references makes them valid, without checking. In reality,
there is no improvement in reliability just because there are references.

I'm not sure why; I used it to indicate two separate concepts ...

That's not what dichotomy means.

It would have seemed to the outside viewer that perhaps you had not
understood the usage.

That depends on the education of the outside viewer.

Hard to do without a platform to stand on from which to begin, eh?

Not at all. All research begins that way. That's why people do research.

It would hardly be fair if you wanted to verify my claims of why the sky
was blue, but you had to discover the atom first (and then molecules,
dipole bonding forces, light refraction, fusion, astronomy, and various
other sundry basal sciences), right?

Why does it have to be "fair"?

Public services usually aim to provide helpful and useful information,
as well as a stepping stone for learning more about the topic, not
commands from on-high from an individual who holds himself in higher
standing than his peers.

My public service is in forcing people to think, an activity that will benefit
them over the long term.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.