Rainboe:
Then that would make Boeing liable? Laurel and Hardy were flying that approach. In an almost perfectly seviceable aeroplane. It will be interesting to see how the blame is apportioned. The lawyers must be salivating already.
I'm not really interested in assigning blame or in lawyers. Boeing are big boys and they can look after themselves.
I want to understand how this accident happened in order to learn from it and hopefully ensure nothing similar happens to me or those I am responsible for. That will involve a dispassionate consideration of
all the factors that contributed in some way to flight 1951 ending up in that plowed field short of the EHAM runway. It certainly would appear from what we know at this stage of the investigation that this accident would not have happened if the crew had been more attentive to their airspeed and power settings. But its equally true to say that the accident probably would not have happened if one piece of non essential equipment (RA#1) hadn't apparently malfunctioned and placed another piece of non essential equipment (A/T) in a mode uncommanded by the crew.
If you don't believe the RA was a contributory factor, then I would like to hear some explanation of your reasoning beyond "it's all the crews fault".
While we're at it, is there a real safety benefit from having A/T on the type of approach flown here? Easier, more convenient perhaps, as long as everything works as advertised. But if we want to avoid complacency and keep pilots in the loop then perhaps they should be required to manage their own power first hand by manipulating the PL's rather than once removed thro the automation. Just a thought.