Greetings and thank you for the replies. I agree, blame is often inferred to identifying persons at fault, and causes to the broader spectrum including systems and any inter-actions with humans. Causes are more important in trying to prevent repetition and to help evolve better designs to aid that end.
However, and this touches on another thread regarding the erosion of basic piloting skills. That subject is addressed very forceably in the NSTB report of the Q400 crash in Buffalo. It draws attention to the modern age where too much reliance is placed by crews on the automatics. They can't go wrong..go wrong..go wrong... Often this is due to the method of training by an operator. I have worked for various opertaors where the attitude from upstairs was very different. Some emphasised and encouraged the continuence of excellent handling skills and multi-tasking while doing so. Others have stifled that approach and turned pilots into robotic trained monkeys in the name of crash prevention. They both had significant failure in command up-grades, but for different reasons. The latter, though, saw a weakness in situational awareness and reacting to non standard non-normal situations. Thinking on your feet and making decisions based on your supposed experience to handle some unusual scenario was missing or confused. Basic command requirements. Especially necessary considering that the total experience in some cockpits can be as little as 3500hrs, when basic command requiremenst alone used to be 5000hrs.
What I am nervous about is the march of technology to remove even further the pilot from the operation. A pilot makes an error in managing a system. There is a knee jerk reaction to blame the system or the human-system interplay. Of all the other 1000's of pilots on same type, how many others have nearly made that same error? Is that researched? I've not heard of it very often. The reaction is to say that the system must have an inherent fault and it is redesigned to be even more automatic. Is the training of that individual ever researched? Is the training philosophy of the airline considered? In some cases, such as the fin failure of the Airbus in the USA due to heavy rudder loads being applied, I believe the training program was questioned. There have been other instances where the training has been improved after an incident. The system was not necessarily automated any more to prevent human interference. There have been some superb enhacements of automation. I've flown the most basic of a/c and some of Boeing's finest, not including FBW. I've not felt out of the loop by EFIS & EICAS. I've felt empowered to do a much better job and easier and more relaxed, helped by the information and level of automation, but not neutered by it. Perhaps that is becasue of my background. I never forgot the basics for older technology. I notice that younger pilots, who grew up on EFIS & EICAS, do tend to let themselves be led by the nose. I hear younger trainers teach them to not interfer but trust the automatics and FLY the F.D.
All I'm saying is that if every time there is a prang due to mis-managing the automatics the answer is to increase the level of automation, I wonder if that is going in the wrong direction for the wrong reason. Perhaps the 1 pilot and a dog cockpit is closer than we think.