In your rebuttal are you referring the dual engine flameout as it relates to Flight 1594? Experience of flight crew certainly was the key factor for passenger survival in this case.
I think it was mostly good decision making on the descent with the knowledge that you are in a congested city area with high-rise buildings all around there was no other adequate landing space except the long expanse of the river.
I highly doubt that Sully had any personal "experience" with water landings on a dual engine flameout... even in the SIM.
What he did... and I'm not minimizing his actions or the outcome... was simply what every PPL is trained to do after a loss of all power. That's quite simply to find the most adequate and safe landing spot as quickly and effeciently as possible while still maintaining control of your aircraft.
It's interesting you didnt use as part of your comment the all too common icing conditions as regional pilots encounter. Do you honestly think that Flight 3407 crew members were adequately prepared for their demise?
I believe that was kind of my point. The FAA does not require us to be prepared for every possible scenario that could possibly take place in our aircraft. For example: Are you adequately prepared for your demise??
Even if they never had the "experience" to deal with the tail stall caused from icing... they did have procedures to deal with the situation of flying into known icing conditions which they didn't necessarily adhere too.
Also realize that those "all too common icing conditions" are encountered by private pilots, cargo/freight pilots/military pilots/and major airline pilots as well.
Knowing what you know now.....would you put your wife and kids on a similar flight with similar crew experience and action?
Realizing again that the same route is flown by TP's, RJ's and Mainline aircraft as well... we all fly into known icing conditions in varying degrees of severity... and yet none of us have been required to have a full training module on stick pusher activation on a low level approach to minimums in severe icing conditions.
What we do have... is procedures that need to be followed in order to continue into... or make the decision to back out of... those conditions.
I've flown that route before several times... in similar conditions. I've seen Colgan fly that same route before many times... in similar conditions. I've had low-timers in my right seat... and I'm sure Colgan has had their share of them as well on those same flights into similar conditions.
Following procedures is something that can always certainly help get us out of, or prevent us from getting into... sticky situations.
But overall... yes... I trust my family to fly on most any aircraft, flown by pilots who have sucessfully completed their FAA approved 121 flight training program. Just as many people still trust the rest of us to get them safely to their destination even after several airline disasters over the last few decades.
My comment Mr. Bob was based on an industry that puts more emphasis on profits(lack thereof) than lives of inviduals. This puts both flight crews and passenger in unneccesary high risk environments where failure is imminent.
I disagree... It's really easy to "de-humanize" airline managers, but realize that no matter how much we view the managers of airlines as "Profit Mongers"... they are still human, and could easily be the same folks that live in your neighborhood, go to your church, are part of your child's PTA, etc.
I believe those individuals are putting the emphasis on "survival" right now vs. profits... and survival of an airline would not be good if they didn't train their pilots properly per FAA standards and had all their planes raining down on the earth in fiery balls of flames.
The "unneccesary high risk environment" is not from sending "unqualified" pilots into conditions that they have been trained to follow procedures for... no, to me, it's a "qualified" pilot sending him/herself into those same conditions without fully appreciating the severity of the situation and then not taking appropriate action before one thing leads to another, that leads to another, that leads to another... thus culminating into a disaster.
What can be gained of course is a critical analysis of these failures and more often than not.....'experience' wins, regardless of simulations.:bandit:
Therein lies the age old question of the chicken and the egg... how does one gain "experience" of dual engine flameouts, severe icing tail stalls at low levels on approaches down to minimums, total electrical and hydraulic failures, midair collisions, gear collapses on the takeoff rolls, and any myriad of possibilities that can occur that we don't normally train for... without "simulations"?
Again... IMO, it's sound decision making based on training that actually has been received up to that point. Unfortunately, since we are all human... some people will make life altering decisions in the heat and intensity of the moment... while others will make life saving decisions, regardless of how much flight time/experience they have in a 172, seminole, TP, RJ, Fighter, Bomber, Airliner, etc.
Bob