yanrair :
On that fatal day, they did ignore them did but we wondered how if you are a trained pilot. ?
Reconstructing a sequence of events after an incident / accident will always be biased , because you know what to look for and you are not in the mindset of the people that were there, at the time.
Only those that survived can explain, and even then, psychiatrists are telling us that memory can be altered after a trauma, so what those pilots say they believed happened might not reflect 100% the facts.
We know that horns and bells do not work , (hearing is the first sense disabled in a high stress situation ) The De Crespigny/QF32 experience in a multi ECAM/warning environment is worth reading in that respect .
For me , expecting humans to take over complex automation in a safe manner is a myth.. Yet we certify systems using this paradigm.
Finally sentences beginning with "they should have" ... are useless in accident investigation . That is why for so many years nearly all accident reports concluded in " pilot errors". No need to change anything , except perhaps a bit more training " recommendations " . Brings us nowhere near to a solution to the original problem .