Originally Posted by
punkalouver
Quotes(in black) from a Flight International article based on NTSB information.....
"The first officer, who was flying, replied “number two” – an apparent reference to the right-hand powerplant – and the captain also said, “number two”.
According to the quote above, the captain repeated what the F/O said(unknown if he based his reply on separate analysis). Then according to the quote below, the copilot changed his mind and the captain did as well(unknown what further assessment was made by the captain before he changed his mind).
SNAP......
Once again, no detail on what analysis that captain did, but it does give one the feeling that he may have relied on what the copilot said instead of confirming himself(captain was flying). One really should take extra time to identify a partial engine failure, if time permits. the consequences of a mis-identification can be catastrophic. In addition, a partial failure may not be obvious after thrust has been reduced.
Or so to say, tick the QA items, without checking ? Where did we see that before ? Boeing ('s production) ?
I think, the more the "actions" are physical, the more people are inclined to take things for granted and leave out the "logic" items, since that does require a change in mental attention, from the steam gauges and levers attention, over to check-list booklets. With the whole being more "push-button" oriented, it needs mental attention to what the meaning of the buttons is, and the drivers are already in that mental state to "think" what they are doing.