Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
What resources did these pilots lack?
First and foremost, ability to recognize what was happening.
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
I didn't realize you were suppose to disregard CRM when the aircraft encounters an instrumentation malfunction.
Keep on not realizing as it is correct thing to do. I have not written it was to be disregarded, what I meant to convey is that it would be useless to use CRM when there is no knowledge or skill to manage.
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
My opinion based on their interactions is the only resource they lacked was adequate training.
Valid if the only thing affecting the interaction were training. It is not, therefore: invalid.
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
How many times?
At least twice. Interim2 lists only MSNs and dates. It is easy to check who was the operator at the time of the occurence using Airfleets, ATDB or similar but I didn't have the inclination to go through the whole list.
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
A good training program is not "good enough", it means that 100% of the time the crew would be able to identify a malfunction and take appropriate action to a satisfactory outcome.
Errr... not quite. There is a thing we call Threat and Error Management that claims we humans are not 100% reliable (quite realistic view, I'd say) but that there are times when we can still work with reduced reliability and yet successfully cope with our eff-ups. Like in cruise.
Originally Posted by Island-Flyer
Obviously these pilots could not understand what should have been a relatively easy avionics error to "fly through".
Yup. WoCL, anyone?
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
Well, Otelli's publication, the PM article are somewhat verifiable research, in the absence of the still withheld evidence of the same by the BEA (just wonder why ....).
It would be useful if you would retell the relevant part of mr Otelli's publication. Parts that got to the PPRuNe make his book look more similar to snuff porn than serious aviation safety text. Of course, such a selective quoting might lead to extremely biased view on the matter. Or not.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
You can all continue to play the ostrich, which only suggests that the brain mass might be equivalent, or there must be some other reason!
I don't find your
ad hominem (or more precisely:
ad struthiocamelum) very informative or entertaining.
Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
But to me the lines in the PM article are horrifyingly evidence enough that independent controls are a distinct disadvantage to coupled ones.
Since 1988, aeroplanes with uncoupled sticks are allowed to participate in public passenger transport, worldwide. Certifying authorities do not share your concern. What do you know that they don't?