Well said DelDah.

I will say this about QRHs, it really falls on the people who write them to do it right. I flew one particular aircraft for an airline and all the instructor could do was trash the QRH for having been written wrong in so many places. And he was right. That's not good. And these weren't systems knowledge issues, it was more like completely untested and borrowed from a different make and model.

Now I'm sure you could ask a pilot "how long can you operate on battery power only?" They probably could give you the answer. It doesn't hurt if the QRH, on important topics, reminds one of that fact because they may not correlate it or think about it at that particular moment.

I don't really think one size fits all on this stuff either. The reason a pilot can do fine with little knowledge is dependent upon what they're doing. Give a pilot a 717 or ERJ-145 and you've got a well thought out, simple, reliable, automated jet that's just fun to fly. Their situation is relatively easier than either a corporate pilot with an old jet or an international pilot in any jet over blue water. IMHO of course.

I know a situation on one old business jet and if you don't follow the right sequence on landing you can literally, and it did, blow the cockpit door through the cabin. I talked to a pilot about it and he was like "aw I've told those guys they have to do XYZ on landing (not in the checklist)..." 3 letter acronym came to my mind about that jet. And of course out over the water where you can't land soon, you just need to know more.

I know I'm not being fair there but life ain't fair.

All of that to say, in the case of those who don't care about work and make no effort, go do something else.