Rongotai
It does seem a pity that you feel the need to try and discount me as a person (about whom you know absolutely nothing except that I live in New Zealand - every other factual thing you infer about me is incorrect) rather than just engage in the debate.
I have no idea where you get that from - I had no intention of doing any such thing. I don't know how you intepret "I'm not entirely sure..." as an insult, but if you do feel insulted, you have my apologies - that was not the intent. I only mentioned it as some of the terminology you used suggested you weren't in the industry.
Anyway, I agree that I'm only looking at one part of it. I simply couldn't be bothered typing a ten page dissertation on the subject. I also agree with a lot of what you say, except this bit:
If we do not examine the underlying causes and, if necessary, correct them, then the disciplining of the actual flight crew achieves nothing.
I never suggested that it does; in fact, my view is that disciplining the crew is innapropriate except in cases of deliberate misconduct. Even then, the heavy-handed application of discipline will never solve the underlying problem, in fact it will probably exacerbate it. In any case, the more normal thing in most airlines I have had dealings with, would be a period of re-training in the sim, and it would be re-training, not a punishment (I know, I used to carry such re-training out).
In the airlines I have worked for, the likely outcome for the crew in the incident this thread refers to would be a slap on the wrist, a stern "don't do it again", and back on the roster poste-haste. No big deal at all.
It is simply out of touch with how humans perform tasks to assume that because you have lines of authority and comprehensive manuals that failure to adhere to them is solely a matter of individual competence. Your view is supported neither by psychology, organisational research or aviation accident statistics.
Adherence to procedures has nothing to do with competence, and everything to do with self-discipline. However, I would point out that the underlying philosophy of the NZ CAA leans heavily on the idea that their responsibility extends solely to ensuring that company manuals are up to date, and assumes that the company and the individuals will then always comply with them. At least that is what they told me when offering me an FOI job a few years ago (I didn't take it). A very odd compliance culture.
BTW if you are going to suggest that my views are not supported by "psychology, organisational research or aviation accident statistics", perhaps you could indicate what you refer to - I would genuinely like to know where you get those ideas from. Many of my views come from material supplied to me when doing a core TRI course in Europe, which, as it is endorsed by the UK CAA, I assumed I could rely on.
It is fascinating that in some cases cultural assumptions are so embedded that even anonymous reporting processes are not trusted.
Examples?
splatgothebugs
In my last job I was in check and training. In JAA land, CRM is assessable on each competency check (ie you could fail the check on CRM). I don't see that over here. Also, there are established courses there such as MCC which don't seem to happen here. A recent type conversion course I did here in NZ had zero CRM/HF content, whereas it would have had a significant element in Euroland. Finally, a few chats with ex-instructor mates from the old days, who are now in the airlines, indicates to me that CRM/HF is given a far lower profile over here.
If you think differently, please tell me as I don't profess to have a complete picture of this area (yet).
As for buzzy and the rest, if you have nothing useful to contribute, why not take you talents to Jet Blast...