FA10
Trust me, DozyWannabe, I know how to take controls - have to do it occasionally.
Quote:
...the presence of 3 ADIs should be more than enough to determine that things are not going well...
...maybe there is a generic problem in that assumpion?
Totally agree, while 3 ADIs might give a strong "hint" that things are not going well to the PNF they do not provide all of the data needed to understand the situation.
Specifically while it might be very obviouse that something was wrong the PNF would have no way of knowing that the PF might be making inputs contrary to what the situation seemed to warrant.
This could well delay the PNFs response since he might hesitate to ask a seemingly insulting question such as "we appear to be stalled, which way are you pointing the nose?" and instead assume the PF was dealing with a more arcane situation.
With direct knowledge of the PF inputs the PNF would be better able to recognize human as well as system failures.
BTW: I -do not- think the cause is anywhere close to pure pilot error, the above is meant as an example of need for awareness of -all- inputs affecting the aircraft.
---
The statement that "XXX cases of UAS at altitude did not have bad outcomes" is depressingly reminscent of NASAs attitude towards O ring erosion on the booster rockets.
In both cases a primary safety device was comprimised but disaster was prevented (for a while) by what was supposed to be a backup.
(O rings on shuttle, pilots and pitch/power on airplanes).