Originally Posted by
jayteeto
Could I request that people take time to read the full report before any further comments on the Sheriff’s conclusion. The press are misrepresenting the gist of his words. What he is saying is not condemnation of Dave. It could have been worded better, but he disagrees with the AAIB to some extent. He believes that Dave’s actions were that of someone being Led/confused by the indication in front of him, leading to him doubting the red warnings and ignoring them. In other words, mitigating circumstances. However Dave’s decision to not believe the warnings was ultimately his decision. He didn’t recklessly accept a new task like the papers are implying, but he did choose to not believe the red warnings. That identification of the mitigation was the best outcome that I could have hoped for. He made an error of judgement, NOT a reckless decision.
Well, the Sheriff isnˋt an aviator.
So his view is legit, but we know, that we as aviators can’t follow/understand Dave’s Decision making, especially knowing, that normally every pilot should have a general idea about his endurance.
As the calculations show, a started stopwatch at t/o would have given him the same information as the warnings did, which he ignored.
And getting a fuel warning, you surely check the indications, but also their plausibility against time flown.
There sure was a human factor involved, which isn’t covered, cause we don’t know, what conversation happened in the bird