Edit: My apologies to you nortonious, I misread your reply when I posted. Sorry I fail at the english.

Hey bud, was going to PM you this but realized I can't so I will go into further detail to demonstrate to the community here a portion of the belittling comments posed towards me from the begining. Here are some of my early posts:
#49 http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/662115-post49.html

#55 http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/663333-post55.html which earned this reply:
Not to play the who started it game?

#58 http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/663742-post58.html
#60 http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/663881-post60.html

Most of these were an attempt to both inform and defend myself against these attacks. Here is a brief *cough* list of those attacks, including the initial one from above:

59
61
I63
70
75

93

Here is the real kicker, in all the bashing to this point those doing the bashing still had yet to figure out what was even going on or how the procedure worked!!!

In post 98 KC figures it out, or claims he does which he did earlier, but for argument sake lets just assume he does at this point:

In post 83, jungle still doesn't know what the heck is going on:

I am still unsure if he has figured it out yet or not. Judging by the increased belittling, even attacking my row boat scenario which was designed to break it down Barny style for the poor fella got belittled later, but that is besides the point. However, it is ironic that he did seem to get it, with this analogy no less, shortly after that in post 114, that is if he has realized the correlation:

I suspect he is still too busy devising cocky replies to my posts to have paid any attention to this though.



I find it extremely arrogant to sit and belittle a person repeatedly, instead of try and listen and understand what is being present, especially when one doesn't even grasp the concept being discussed. It is for this reason you have not seen me reply to any of their posts for the last few days. They obviously already know everything and certainly don't need basic aerodynamics explained to them from a little know nothing CFI.


Flyingchicken, I thank you for your words and will try to avoid that attitude you refer to in the future. I hope my visual presentations and explanations were helpful to you in discovering this wonderful technique to add to your toolbox for a rainy day. Take care bud.

 

You spent a lot of time on that, but you still don't have any test data or manufacturer's recommendations. This is not an attack on you, but it is a tough sell absent any agreement or even anecdotal evidence to support your somewhat inane position. Rowboats really don't have much to do with what we are talking about, you might want to watch that video again. Even a caveman would understand. Rollout control is the key and there is no asymmetric thrust at that point as you have stated.

None of us know everything, but if you read the posts of those with 10,000 plus hours of experience it becomes obvious that you are wrong with many of your statements. That is OK, because you don't have the time or the proof for your statements.

Just to make it clear, I will quote you: "my aerodynamics professor Thomas Teller told us to think about each time we read any manual section other than the limitations:

1) Do you trust the person giving the information."

What experience or credentials do you offer to make your statements any where near believable?
Even without experience or credentials it would be easy to understand a reasonable statement, but you have fallen down in this regard also.
Get real and quote a source as others have done, but since you can't find a credible source we get to listen to bleatings about rowboats.

 

Show us how any of shdw's statements are valid with hard data and you will have an audience. I really have not seen any personal attacks, but people will question those things they know to be untrue or in conflict with real world test data or procedures.

If you want to make an impression tell us how this will help rollout control when all engines are brought to idle.

 

Jungle, I have no agenda to push, I'm not looking to impress anyone or have the need for an audience. I merely saw a concept that I had not thought or heard of before in my years of flying, and was impressed enough with the logic and physics behind it (and remain so at this point) to pursue further discussion.

I would agree that if both engines are pulled to idle before touchdown, then you would have gained nothing.

My interpretation is to leave some asymmetric thrust in and fly it on until the tires have enough weight on them to take the sideload.

 

The problem with this idea is that on most jets ground spoilers will not deploy or stay deployed unless two or more throttles are at idle. Once they are brought to idle, you have the rudder and ailerons/spoilers to help you track centerline. Just as without any asymmetric power input at all.

 

Absolutely, positively an incorrect statement. The entire manual, whether FOM/GOM in addition to the equivalent of the Boeing FCOM is FAA approved and as such, MUST be followed. In addition, many carriers have an approved Maneuvers & Procedures Manual, or similiar such document, which covers just about everything. Guess what, it's also FAA approved and MUST be adhered to. If you think there is lattitude to "free wheel" you are sadly mistaken. Again, I'm coming from a 14 CFR 121 background and from my experience, Part 135 doesn't vary much either.

Standarization of procedures is the main reason that air carriers have enjoyed the safety record that they have over the past several decades.

Fly by the Book Mates

 

But if you are on the ground already, you have the main wheels in contact with the runway surface, providing some scrub sideforce to keep ground tracking. The moment you pull the thrust levers to idle and lose the asymmetric thrust, the ground spoilers will pop and the wheels will have full weight on them.

The removal of the downwind thrust would also create a yawing moment in the direction of the decrab... interesting...

 

FAA approved does not constitute an absolute or a limitation. If you would like, search around for written proof by the FAA claiming that what is in the book is the only way you are allowed to fly the plane, you won't find it. FAA approved only means they approve of the information written in the manual and is different than an FAA regulatory document.

Think of it this way, if you landed an aircraft safely in an emergency situation but didn't follow the written procedures would they rip your ticket? Unless there is also a regulation that says you must follow this FAA approved procedure unless you are in an emergency, I am familiar with no such regulation. Of course my familiarity doesn't mean it doesn't exist, however, if you find such regulation I would love to see it. Thanks and in no way am I trying to sound like a smart ... in this post, if I did, than I am sorry in advance.

Disclaimer: Again I am not promoting any pilot to fly outside of the procedures for typical flights. Instead I only advise every pilot to keep an open mind to any and all procedures, both FAA approved and otherwise. Be open to thinking outside the box and store these procedures, even if they are not published in your books, in the back of your head. Knowing what your aircraft is able to do outside the bounds of those procedures might one day save your butt. Even practicing and experimenting with these unpublished procedures in the sim just so you have them in your toolbox.

Flyingchicken, yes that is interesting, was wondering if someone would comment on that.

 

This thread has gotten so far off of the original topic, it's almost not worth the effort to comment.

With that said, I agree with your thought process. I merely replied to the statement you made, saying the limitations section was the only portion of one's manual you were legally bound to follow. Absolutely incorrect. With any due respect, I believe you wandered off the magenta line.

Out of here..forever

G'day Mates

 

The whole point of my reply is that what I said was absolutely correct and claiming it is incorrect due to "FAA approved" is wrong. All aircraft, even my little GA planes have "FAA approved" flight manuals as it is required to have them. That doesn't change the simple fact that the limitations section of that manual is the only absolute as going outside those limitations can cause things on your plane to start departing your aircraft.