123apple wrote:I have no intention of boarding an aircraft whose pilots disregard the manuals, and say that they do not apply to them
Me neither, because that is not what i said. I'll repeat what i did say once more here. Manuals are highly legal documents in which the manufacturers lawyers try to get as many details as possible, to later rely on them in court, if necessary. Hereby the manuals are riddled with information that is true, but technically quite meaningless because the effect is insignificant.
Airlines create their SOP's out of these manufacturers manuals. Some airlines filter out the meaningless paragraphs, which are only there for legal purposes. Others follow each word to the letter. There is a good chance that pilot training is better at airlines who think themselves, than at airlines who do not. At least the pilots there are facilitated with better SOP's. Pilots should train and follow the SOP's.
An example of a meaningless paragraph in the manufacturers manual is that toga is great for reducing wear. Sure it can be true that it is better, but the difference with a well trained pilot is so insignificant, that it is meaningless to mention it. It is not there for any technical reason, but purely for eventual later legal use.
What does reduce wear significantly, is using reduced thrust take offs. But that has nothing to do with whether you do it with toga or manual. Reduced thrust is standard in every airline. Yet some airlines let it to the pilot whether he uses toga or manual. In fact some airlines even encourage to use manual regularly.
The thing i was mistaken about is that toga is used more than i expected. You say that "every single Airbus aircraft departs either using TOGA or FLX thrust". I cannot comment on that, because i lost interest in Airbus due to their anti flight policies. And this: "all good airlines that I know of use the TOGA switch on the Boeing 737" i would change to "all good airlines that I know of use either the TOGA switch or manual on the Boeing 737"
Kind regards, Vincent
