Wrong. For the sake of how to manage the phugoid with no elevator or trim, they had NO training. Proper or improper.I would infer from your word that the UAL guys had improper training. (The dot is a period and the proverbial end of discussion...right?).
Wrong again.I can also infer that that you actually do want Gabriel's Phour-step (with phour sub notes) Proper Phenatic Phull Phugoid course to be part of all recurrent training.
July 14th: "I am not even proposing training ATP pilots in how to manage this oscillatory motion with no elevator or trim control"
July 15th: "Worth it? I don't know. Crashes happen much more often for other pilot screw-ups than for not knowing how to manage phugoids. So if sim time is scarce, probably learning to master the phugoid is not the best use of it."
July 15th: You: "I begin to see flyboy's side that it's not the best use of time." Me: "It is my side too. That one thing (training in phugoid management) can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. Two different things."
July 15th: "Again, whether the resources should be allocated to develop and implement that training and practice is a different question. Can vs should."
Now find a counterexample where I suggested the opposite.
Then why all the fuss, you may ask?
Return to the source of the discussion there. LH said that it is critical for the safety of the flight that the airlines designate a captain with more than 9000 hours of experience to be in the cockpit at all times (criticizing AF that left two FOs with only 3000 and 6600 hours).
And used UAL as an example of that saying that the vast experience of Captain Haynes, with 30000 hours of experience, was critical to lose only a bit less of half of the lives on board.
My reply to that was that that was a horrible example because: a) He had exactly ZERO hours of experience flying in this mode, b) It was not Haynes but Fitch flying the plane with throttles who saved more than half of the lives, c) Fitch was not a required crew member, he was there just by chance, d) That he actually disobeyed Haynes instruction to retard the throttles in short final, which would have been catastrophic, and e) That it can be done better, with the correct set of skills that come with understanding, training and practicing, which this crew didn't have, wasn't supposed to have, and I never said that should have had.
That's it, and I stick to that. The rest were 3WEflyboyish tricks of misreading, misrepresenting, misinterpreting, and imagination of reading between lines things that were not there.
I never said it's easy. I said it's difficult, many times.
I never said that this missing training should be added. I suggested the opposite, many times.
I did praise the crew for getting the partially successful outcome they got with what they had, which was not much: a crippled airplane, two throttles, and the ability to learn of the fly the best they could what they didn't know nor were supposed to know.
Is it clear now?