Chinook Human factors not pilot error
this is merely my observation on the whole issue as I mailed to the Daily Telegraph today - more in hope than expectaion -
Within most of the aviation industry the term 'human factors' has been recognised for some years as a vastly more fruitful psychological safety perspective than 'pilot error'. Unfortunately this recognition is less than universal as the comments by the CAS, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton (6 Jan) perhaps show: if you were buying a new car and the salesperson informed you its 'operating instructions had 'factored into' them such 'software issues' as unreliable speed indications, intermittant ABS braking control, random electronic fuel flow and 'smart' systems that could not tell the difference between hot and cold, day and night, rain or dry, the caveat that you are now aware of the inherent systemic design faults would hardly excuse the seller of his obligations, nor be likely to persuade you to buy - or any insurer to insure you! But if you were obliged, by the very nature of your job and duty to drive the car, would anyone in their right mind be surprised if you crashed? Yet a similar scenario might have been presented to the crew of the Chinook which crashed off the Mull of Kintyre. Until the totality of the 'human element' rather than just the 'pilot element' is fully considered in this investigation it appears that justice may never be done.