I'll propose that as a community, we pilots take more comfort in "pilot action" errors. That includes the pilots not handling an otherwise controllable mechanical/electrical malfunction. To hope to find an accident is the result of factors beyond a pilot's control is just too pessimistic to contemplate. As long as we can hope for "pilot error" then there's a chance that in the same situation the next pilot could have done something better, and perhaps can prepare for it in the meantime. If the accident was due to something the pilot was not able to control, then all the training and experience in the world counts for naught, and we are all doomed to the shadow of an occupation that could snuf our lives arbitrarily and randomly.
From the preliminary report, we know the aircraft had some dramatic attitude excursions from the normal profile in the final few seconds. I doubt most pilots have ever seen anything like 38 degrees nose down, unless they flew Apaches or Lynx in a past life. It is a preliminay report, with more information to come, so we can be patient. For myself I'm going to give it a try in a simulator where I get a second chance. Staying with the facts, does anybody know what kind of autopilot/flight director system this aircraft had and what modes would likely have been engaged by CHC in their standard offshore procedures. Information for the sim experience only, no speculation on what the crew may have been doing, which no doubt will be in the AAIB final report.
malabo