Originally Posted by
Centaurus
Not forgetting the Flydubai Flight FDB 981 B737-800 on 19 June 2016. It was a straightforward go-around on instruments yet the pilot blindly tried to follow the HUD beyond its tolerances and dived into the ground. A terrible accident. There is no exemplary skill needed for a go-around in a 737. Properly trained, it is a basic manoeuvre after all. All the usual excuses can be made (fatigue etc) but it boils down to staggering incompetence in instrument flying ability.
See:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/w...a6-fdn_eng.pdf
From what I understand, the PIC had to perform two go arounds and was emotionnally messed up. He had to push forcefully on the control column (he did not trim down at the first stage of the go around) and he looked like he went tired of this and eventually put way too much down trim.
To me, this is another illustration of the importance of ergonomics.
Surely, the captain failed to control his aircraft. But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback.
I forgot the exact word, but in the TEM model as well as in James Reason's model, safety comes from the addition of "safety layers".
So it is not contradictory to say that the pilot failed, but this does not prevent the manufacturer from trying to improve its product.
The whole subject is which improvement to make ? One strategy could be to keep the pilot out of the loop, as much as possible. Less pilot input required = less possible pilot error.
Another strategy would be to facilitate his task, offer him highly sophisticated automation, but also provide him with the means to keep sharp skills whenever he/she wants. And only then the regulator could ask for a certain point of manual flying proficiency.