Originally Posted by RetiredF4
A general in the cockpit during flight/landing should not influence the safe conduct of flight and the integrity of the crew, and I doubt that it did.
I believe we had this discussion before on the original accident thread. You are very lucky to have had your career in an environment where professionalism was the norm, and issues were decided based on sound reasoning rather than who has more stars. We who grew up in the old system, and experienced firsthand the operating and thought environments of the old Warsaw Pact militaries, can recognise all the symptoms instantly. I see several nodding heads when I'm saying, the extra occupants in the cockpit did have a significant influence on the final outcome. Emphasis on the presence, the 0.6 alcohol level is totally insignificant.
I will make this last comment and then shut up, as really the bone is starting to have no scraps left. The Russian report sums up very nicely the causes for the accident, which are on three levels.
1) Direct cause - poor airmanship from the side of the flight crew, who through a series of inappropriate actions or ommissions directly caused a CFIT. The responsibility for this, as several have pointed out, rests primarily with the PIC.
2) Influencing cause - real and perceived pressure from the 'Main passenger' and the PAF Chief to 'land whatever it takes'. Knowing the history of the Tbilisi flight, this pressure wery clear, even if it remained unsaid. The presence of the PAF Chief in the cockpit reinforced and aggravated this pressure. Some of the mistakes made by the crew are probably due to this pressure - it is a well established fact that under stress and anxiety individual performance drops. In this respect, any person who made such pressure is directly responsible for the accident, at least to the same extent as the PIC.
3) Systemic cause - the apallingly low operating standards exhibited by the PAF, demonstrated extensively in the report. This resulted in having an inexperienced and ill-trained crew operate this flight with inadequate flight preparation, in conditions far exceeding their abilities. These same low standards have already caused another CFIT accident that had chilling similarities to this one. The 'accountable manager' whose responsibility was to oversee operations was sitting there in the cockpit...
The ommission of the report in analising any deeper whether the flight should have been permitted at all relates to systemic causes arising from the Russian ATC procedures, and how they were applied to this flight. However no failure or ommission from the Russian ATC could be considered a direct or indirect cause. They might have influenced the final outcome, but that would not negate any of the above interrelated findings.
Really it all boils down to one thing. The 'Main passenger' created an environment around him where no one dared (or bothered) to put up any arguments or counter-proposals. Not even the Russian government, and that's saying something... He paid the ultimate price.