Originally Posted by
FlightDetent
You're reading too much into it, I am not that versed. Facing the simple choice of saying "making wrong decisions" I elected play smart with "not taking the good decisions". At the time of writing it looked reasonable as I tried to convey observed empirical reality that handflying reduces the brainresource to make decisions (in the true meaning you explain agreeably).
...
Agreed! That is exactly why I said NOT TAKING the good decisions.
OK, maybe I read too much into what you meant by decision. But if you're simply using it to say that they didn't do the right thing, then your explanation for why they didn't do the right thing, is that they didn't do the right thing. It's not explaining the behavior, just restating it. And not put forth an alternative to "they can't handle it," which is what I think you were trying to do.
Sorry, now that I noticed you partly try to disagree with the opposite of what I wrote, deciphering what may be relevant in this last paragraph is not compatible with my timezone a.t.m. For the record I never discussed the choice of engaging the AP or not, but the other choices and desicions that need to be solved regardless of automation state, and specifically which of the basic chess-board laouyts (AP=on vs. hand-flown) leaves more spare processing power.
Fair enough, we could have been talking about different accidents (or aspects of same accidents). I've acknowledged that on any given flight, the AP-on chess board layout leaves more processing power.
But isn't it a pilot's job to have the processing power, with AP off, to solve chess problems like "what am I doing to the airspeed by pulling multiple dozens of pounds?" or, "the airplane is banking and I don't want it to" or, "the airplane is descending to a point a mile short of the runway, in plain VMC?" Not as a show-off of pilot prowess, but because pilots are forced to do this by circumstance and it's required to arriv safely. If you agree that that is our job, then how are pilots to achieve this ability?
First thought, your opinion: If Asiana@SFO was hypothetically flown remotely by a remote pilot UAV-style, would the captain at chair 0A / 0B had better chance to a) notice b) evaluate correctly c) take preventive action against the speed-loss (combined)? Compared to himself flying manually at the time.
Really the more relevant scenario is that the remote link failed in the middle of the approach and the row zero passengers suddenly had to start flying.