Originally Posted by Blind Pew
The aircraft was equipped with substandard parts which were inadequately tested, when this was realised there should have been a mandatory replacement program within a definite time scale.
Down to manufacturers and the authorities.
Agreed, but all major manufacturers have been guilty of this.
Air France carried out a series of simulator tests with similar conditions to the RIO flight, most of the crews crashed.
Those that didn't had a member who flew small aircraft in his spare time.
Do you have a reliable source for this? The FDR/CVR were found only a matter of months ago. Prior to that the conditions of flight were largely unknown. If most Air France crews crashed in these conditions then that is a matter of grave concern. I have flown unreliable IAS at altitude in an Airbus simulator numerous times and haven't crashed once, nor do I know anyone who has. I do not fly light aircraft and consider myself averagely skilled. If I can do it why can't they?
Whilst there were definite errors on the part of the crew notably the captain leaving the flight deck during ITCZ transit - they were not sufficiently trained to deal with a situation which, before the advent of glass cockpits, was extremely rare.
Train your crews right and the captain should have no problem leaving the cockpit during ITCZ transit. I don't know of any European major where this is considered a factor during augmented crew ops.
They were not taught correct pitch power flying - PNF should not have had to delve into a checklist - it should be known by heart.
Unreliable IAS is a memory drill and the attitudes and power settings should be known by heart. Why did they not recognise the situation and call for the drill? If you know the pitch and power settings but don't use them what does that say?
The industry has had two crew operation forced upon them - I believe it is intrinsically unsafe.( as demonstrated here when PNF was in the checklists and not monitoring PF).
Was a checklist ever called for, let alone commenced?
In the good old days most pilots could cope with multiple failures and fly the aeroplane - is the cost of ensuring adequate flying currency too expensive with respect to the cost of a hull loss?
There were a lot more crashes in the good old days. Nostaligia is great fun but you're shooting yourself in the foot with this one.