Originally Posted by
snakepit
I think that’s just too simplistic a statement Carb. I agree that had they been using NVGs the ‘might’ have seen the island but you cannot say that they ‘would’ have seen the island.
The reality is, and as the report finds, the crew were essentially set up to fail by an insurmountable (for them, on that night) series of systemic failures. Even NVGs might have made no difference at all because as a crew they were trucking along at 200’ in the belief that they had Company proven safe lateral and vertical clearance. Any crew that believes they are currently safe will by human nature be less aroused and therefore less diligent. In this scenario even with NVGs it’s likely there lookout on that stormy night would have been sub optimal; just like the sub optimal use of radar ranging and any of the many other factors that might just have saved their lives but they failed to do with the required diligence. All because they were misled by those many systemic failures into believing they were safe when they were anything but.
Why do you say 'might' as opposed to what is the actuality - I am sure with my NVG experience, that a 250' high chunk of rock will be glaringly obvious - but you would have to be looking out of the window and heads not totally into instruments which requires some skill. NVG's are an aid, yes I understand that, and there are many cautions about their use as we know. But they are game changers to most night operations