Most posts seem to be rather subjective on this issue.
The bottom line in this case is that an operator on a tight budget tried to provide air service and it doing so it failed.
You can go around the houses for as long as you want but the truth to the matter is that this crew were ill equipped from the word go.
How many 737 operators around the world have operated the same aeroplane for decades and have had the same problem such as this crew?Not many.In fact not many at all but its easy and convenient to divert attention from the real issue here. Training or lack of it. With proper training these perceived deficiencies would have been ironed out at the training stage and subsequent recurrent training. This operator was not the only operator of such aeroplane that the design of it has to be scrutinised subjectively as it has been here.
One horn for two systems? Ok design flaw. Or from the manufacturer's logic- air and ground. The after take off checklist completion, the way it is carried out it frees the PF to get on with the task of flying the aeroplane at a critical phase of flight, so diverting his attention to the inside should be his last thing on his mind(but we know that we have to do this due airmanship or if the other guy can actually be bothered because.....). But experience tell us that that monitoring the monitoring pilot is highly recommended.
Lastly maybe the system should have just come out and said '' don oxygen masks'' too. But that suggestion would have a flaw in itself, the human might forget to arm it in the first place. So no matter what when it comes to operating an aeroplane, the manufacturer's procedures should be closely followed and one's perception on how it should be, just like how some instructors would like to operate&teach outside of those confines should be taken as airmanship points and not gospel. How many times have we had a question from the checking chap asking '' where is that written?''
The system should not on trial here, it is the operation and understanding of it instead. No matter how poor the design of such system, the operator should be adequately trained in order to operate it competently. Period.
Poorly trained crews will inevitably fail in one form or another should the situation arise.
This accident is a testament to the fact that anyone can start an ''airline'' and hope that the crew will makeup the for the company's intentionally introduced deficiencies. Or so called self funded type rating training agencies pumping out ill prepared crew whilst being too busy conducting an airservice themselves, instead of teaching what they are meant to?
Trying to blame the manufacturer is a poor attempt at exonerating one self from all responsibility. No matter how sophisticated the system might be, the human always attempts to outsmart the system, and on each occasion it has and always failed short of the mark in doing so instead of just following the instructions on the tin. Numerous accidents are available to show that the human element is the weakness in the system and somehow always resorts to blaming the system rather than itself. There is truth to what I once heard from a wise man, that the human is the only animal that repeatedly stumbles on the same stone time and time again.
The sole responsibility should lie with the company for not providing the necessary tools to its workforce,in order for them to be able to carry out their duties in the most safe, efficient and professional manner but as usual in a case like this the management are not on trial!
Last edited by abc1; 1st May 2010 at 06:17.