Originally Posted by
HundredPercentPlease
There are a handful of skygods on here who continuously say "they should have" or "all they needed to do was" or "I would have just" and so on.
In my opinion, pilots with these outlooks are less than safe.
They have a high opinion of themselves.
They have not appreciated the HF elements of these accidents.
They have not considered how HF will affect their operation, in the event of a serious problem.
They are therefore not prepared.
If we just blame the pilots for being a bit crap, then nothing in the industry will improve. We need to understand why these pilots, despite all of their efforts, could not keep the aircraft from the ground. Only when we understand, can we make the correct changes to stop it happening again.
Even the finest pilots in the world, when suddenly presented with a simple failure (double engine failure, for example), will sit there and think "no - this can't be happening" followed by "what on earth do I do".
It is inexcusable that Boeing and the FAA allowed a pretty ropy old aircraft with some dodgy characteristics to be released with even poorer characteristics. It is a demonstration of how multiple signals during a critical phase of flight can make it very difficult for pilots to overcome startle, then diagnose, fly and solve a problem.
As an aside - in my airline it was discovered that UAS events were handled badly. So in one sim cycle we were trained. In the next sim cycle we were tested, and still it was handled badly. So in the next sim cycle again we were trained a lot more. It transpires that real UAS is really a HF event of great complexity, and is therefore very difficult to get right. The technical side of it is a doddle.
Can we please focus on how we contribute to make the industry better (safer)?