Meikleour, Re “explain 'duty of care' … ”
In an HF sense I cannot. I think that it is within human behaviour, only known to a decision maker at the time – perhaps even an unknowable subconscious activity; a bias, a belief, a goal, wanting to help someone … etc.
All that I might argue is an equivalent phrase - ‘the required level of safety’, which could be influenced by the organisation, perhaps even inadvertently by the authority in this modern ‘overseeing’ environment. The guidance for achieving this level of safety should allow for human variability, perhaps more so as training and operating scenarios change.
From personal experience in a similar situation, self reflection leaves a feeling of emptiness - ‘it seemed OK at the time’, of being unable to explain the decision as logical, but at the same time it was not illogical.
Would I do it again … in a progressive, learning, safety culture, … perhaps; but no, we all like a quiet life and thus might take the easy less-hassle choice and let the management and regulators worry about safety (... experience!). Thus this is another problem for the industry where individuals and organisations wish to duck their duty of care, by moving the responsibility for safety elsewhere.
We might question (debate) a Captain’s decision, but never criticise someone who took responsibility for safety, irrespective of the outcome. But to achieve an understanding of this, the same understanding as that of the Captain, requires very much greater thinking ability than mine.
As an afterthought, I wonder if the simulator adequately represents the aircraft in the obscure scenario of the incident. Is the ‘on ground signal’ simulated for each leg, and is a single wheel touchdown calculted and registered by the simulator software? If not, how can simulators provide Cat D training for crosswinds?
Vc10Tail, beware hindsight bias and the fundamental attribution error.