Rockhound,
You said;
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">
All three were aware that the PVD indicated a discrepancy but, as I understand it, use of the PVD is not mandatory.
This brings up the matter of the article in the Taipei Times of Feb 22 (to which InitRef drew attention), which alleged (even to the point of quoting him) that Cyrano had warned Choong that the ND indicated they were out of position but was interrupted by an overbearing captain. Surely the CVR and the interview with Cyrano show this is all complete and utter garbage.
</font>
It was actually the F/O in the observer's seat who corrected the RHS F/O saying that the PVD will not be lined up until within 45 degrees of the centerline.
But why wasn't this followed up after the SQ 6 had lined up? .... Why didn't the F/O's raise this point again after the plane's heading was within 45 degrees of the centerline?
The Captain had quickly dismissed the use of the PVD as irrelevant since it was not an operational requirement although both F/O's showed at least some interest in the fact that the PVD indications were somehow not quite right.
...and the F/O's accepted the Captain's decision...
without question.
I don't know, Rockhound, whether you have ever lived in Singapore, but here,
you are taught from an early age to never ever question authority under any circumstances. When it comes to effective CRM, then this becomes a problem and must be addressed in the interest of air safety.
[This message has been edited by WSSS (edited 02 March 2001).]