Hi Lonewolf,
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I wonder why you call it tunnel vision instead of a conditioned response to procedural training, pattern mapping, or learned behavior."
So far, there is no such "conditioned response" measured behavior, including several other AF crews, as those many previous cases won't show any pattern of similar behaviors.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
With respect, takata, I don't think you understood what I was talking about.
With all due respect, Your Smartiness should be right. It seems to be all about "conditioned response" and I can't understand what you are talking about.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
It would be useful to consider what the reaction to stall warning training is and how it is done. (Or was). Some pages back, a very useful description of the 2005 vintage of that procedure was linked to.
The condition/response set isn't the same issue to address as "reaction to UAS training," which is a malfunction of a lesser order.
Nonetheless, if your Smartiness did his homework, he should have also noticed that most recorded UAS events included the same STALL warnings (ie. see Air CARAIBES report) and none resulted to such zoom-climb until AF447 case.
Then talking about "conditioned response" doesn't fit with the case on hand as the previous pilot reactions ranged from "no stick imput" to "emergency descent".
The fact is that the STALL warnings was already identified as the main factor of early confusion during an UAS event BEFORE AF447 case. It was where the procedure seemed already weak (some concern about it was discussed with Airbus) as it was also the first information displayed before the UAS issue was identified, then it was potentially known as dangerous.
I'll post further data later tonight about those previous cases.