A37575 Re: You should not make the mistake of confusing airmanship with company SOP.
Agreed; I could have chosen better wording, perhaps ‘airmanship and stewardship’ (organisational management – safety management) to represent the joint individual and organisational responsibilities in risk assessment – perhaps tactical and strategic assessments respectively.
I do not like, or wish to encourage the concept that company SOP is primarily designed to cover litigation, even if true.
IMHO this encourages pilots to relinquish their responsibility for safety, restricts thinking, and might lead to reduced flexibility which is essential for both safety and profitable operation. Furthermore if operational management think this way, then they too might stop looking at safety because they feel that their responsibilities are covered – safety is good enough, the SOPs meet the rules, and if not followed – blame the pilot. This is a slippery slope.
I agree with your discussion on the problems of identifying a speed error (failure is easier to detect) and the aspects of training. However, it should be the tenor of training to improve skill in crosschecking airspeed in these situations – knowing where to look, what to compare, and why, which appear to be the primary issues not understood by many newer / inexperienced pilots. (Experience isn’t about time on type; it’s about knowing what to do, when, and why to do it).
Perhaps the Boeing ‘FMC’ cross check was introduced after an instrument related accident. Thus, by introducing a new check (if only as guidance – or as legal cover), the reaction, to an accident which should have been prevented by other means, has unwittingly added confusion (complexity) which is open to misuse / misinterpretation.