safetypee;
Re your observation, "Those who wish to prosecute ‘deviant’ crews without all of the evidence (because many cognitive aspects are not available), should consider what aspects of safety could be learnt from alternative viewpoints. Try being the defense lawyer."
With respect, please re-read my contribution to the discussion. Given my history here you should be well aware that I understand both the phenomenon of hindsight bias, and the broader notions of organizational failure.
While we may not be able to discern the cognitive state of the captain in this accident such that understanding and thus prevention are possibilities, I did clearly state,
"The point is made more stark by asking, for example, questions about the captain's physical health, and considering just the possibility of, say brain disease, (cancer/stroke/latent epilepsy) which had not manifested itself in previous medicals etc. As well-written as it is, the DGCA Report does not discuss this and, likely correctly, cites sleep inertia etc."
There is already much to learn from this accident, including the issues of mandatory go-arounds by the PM even if the cognitive sources of abnormal cockpit behaviours on the part of the PF cannot be discerned in the moment.
In flight data analysis I have seen and see daily trends of long landings, some well beyond the TDZ. I see power-off, high-rate-of-descent, high-speed approaches where go-arounds are absolutely indicated yet crews press on, some on 6000ft runways. Do we investigate the cognitive states and predispositions of each PF involved? Of course not... The tools and processes for prevention are already available.
Cognitive processes are, in the end, (and as you almost certainly know) complex to the point of being serious subjects of the philosophy of mind, and if you are aware of those areas of serious academic work, you will know that strong differences of interpretations of cognitive processes exist even at these levels.
Most certainly, "prosecution" is not the answer, and I should have thought that the "but..." in my post would have made that clear.
PJ2