Mad (Flt) Scientist
A trifle faceatious, but given a situation where a pilot might make the right choice 99% of the time, and a software system 99.9% of the time, if the consequences of error are catastrophic I am more-or-less forced to dump the problem in the pilot's lap. because while it's acceptable for the pilot error rate to be 1%, a software catastrophic failure rate of 0.1% would never, ever, be certifiable.
Add to this that its essentially impossible for the software to cater for all combionation, and it becomes essential for the s/w to at some point "give up" and hope that the pilot can get himself out of trouble.
Well said
Now we really do need the pilot error rate verified in this combination and even more important we need to understand if there is a conditional failure lurking that was not considered.
Such a conditional failure might be an
unanticipated additional system failure given that one encounters presumed turbulence at night and presumed ice crystals and a presumed failure of the speed measuring system and its cascading computer effects with a 99% crew.
So where is the key that is being missed or do we have something completely different than the above presumptions
data I want more data, what other combinations were at play in the other events?