JT
I do not let lawyers or enquirys dictate the way I operate an airplane; I do that better than them.
I follow procedures and recomendations developed by the manufacturer after extensive testing and with the knowlege of the people that developed the systems. If there is a procedure I do not agree with, I ask Airbus.
You are putting words in my mouth by saying "but your view is that the Commander ought not consider the circumstances of the particular flight and merely follow the QRH or equivalent in the nature of an automaton?"
The PIC has the ultimate authority of decision making; never sugested to take that away; but procedures were developed with more knowlege than you, I or any single person might have, I follow them. The A320 series is complex enough to start second guessing the way it is recomended by Airbus that we fly it.
Where do you stop with your thinking, what other recomendations do you change, what other areas and what parameters do you allow yourself to protect yourself from liability? The lawyers will always find a way to find you at fault; example: "why did you descent when the experts at the manufacturer and you documents onboard say you do not need to, maybe if you stayed at 390 like Airbus recomended you would have stayed out of the clear air turbulence that hurt your typical 90 year old great grandma that was walking with her cane to the restroom? Do you think you know better than the experts at Airbus?"
We can not let aviation ignorant lawyers dictate the way we operate the A/C; that is what make us different.
And BTW, I don't need to read about lawyers and accidents or incidents; I have testified about procedures at several and have been involved in many accident investigations(currently involved in one). One of the big reasons I take what Airbus writes very seriously.
Happy landings.
G