Most of the posts do not mention that occasionally an approach in fog can be the most difficult bit of flying that a pilot can do.
Firstly the top of the fog bank/orographic cloud is the boundary between airmasses.
Sometimes it is just a small temperature inversion, but occasionally there is a large shift of temperature and a massive change of wind direction and strength - I've witnessed 160 degrees and 25 knots.
This can lead to a destabilization of the aircraft.
At this time of the year the sun is still low on the horizon and the added effects of early morning and the sun at ninety degrees to the approach path can give severe optical illusions.
Added to this is the disorientating effect of the fog accelerating around the cockpit windows.
Finally there is the sudden transition from bright sunlight into comparative darkness.
Without the above factors a monitored approach with either an experienced flying pilot or autopilot is a challenge in itself.
But trying to fly the old one man band approach with a barely qualified first officer and non fail safe autopilot is poor risk management.
If this is the case - obviously speculation - then those to blame are those in the industry who make the laws and administer them(?).
Unfortunately the industry has pockets that reek of nepotism - those that retire from some of the national carriers find them policing their old mates who happen to be members of the same "club".
We have an accident with two barely qualified young men who were trying their best for their passengers and company and who probably will carry the can.
Will the Europeans change the system as the FAA are trying to do after the Buffalo accident -( minimum 1500hrs to carry pax)?
Or will they blame the pilots who were operating (legally) into probably unknown territories?
Is there anything we can do to enhance safety and change the system?
Yes, sensible discussions which exchange knowledge and highlight the deficiencies in the training, operation and regulation of civil aviation.