that's the weather and crew taken care of, I guess .. now, what are your views on the other considerations ... for which we have, as yet, not much information of which I am aware .. ?
I don't have any. That would be speculation...
Regardless, has there been any hard evidence presented to date to suggest that they made an error ?
To be slightly mischievious...
Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty - Galileo
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth - Arthue Conan Doyle
In other words, yes it is possible that some obscure technical failure put the aircraft beyond the control of the pilots... but I think we all know that it is unlikely.
I like Tee Emm's attitude .. why put yourself in a potentially very marginal situation if you don't really need to do so ?
As I said, I agree 100% with TM, however that isn't the real world. Unfortunately, in Australia you still allow this sort of training to be carried out in the aircraft when simulators are available, so if you find yourself carrying out these manoeuvres in the aircraft... be prepared.
I'm a tad confused as to why we are moving into military versus civil arguments ?
Because military training methodologies have been, in the past at least, overly aggressive, and their proponents have been prepared to accept a much higher level of risk in an effort to load up the candidate and weed out those without the "right stuff". This way of thinking has spilled over into the civil world, as military pilots have entered civil flying jobs, and has been a factor in many training accidents. I don't know whether any of the Air North trainers are ex-military, but if so, it could explain the reluctance to use simulators and ergo this accident, at least in some part. It certainly shouldn't be ignored.