from PJ2, quoting Machinbird
Quote:
My conclusions with regard to AF447's crew's performance resulted from an analysis about what must happen for success, and then examining the record for evidence of these critical performance activities (and not finding them).
from PJ2: "Precisely"
agreed.... That sustains a reasonable interpretation of a common metric, to wit:
"What did they know, and when did they know it." Which is a presumption requiring evidence to support, save for some linkage with actual commentary from the pilots....
To fine tune, "What was displayed, available; and what actions can be associated with its acquisition, comprehension, and 'action taken'.
So I will go out on a vulnerable scout, not all three pilots were untrained in probblematic high altitude flight, if we entertain that the two not "inputting" honestly were prevented due to poor design from sussing the control inputs of the PF.
alf, a question? Subject to humor, is hindsight bias a conclusion in itself subject to bias on the part of the judge?
The foresight discussion: "What did they know, and when did they know it"? Is susceptible to unprofessional critique, but I expect many in the Public will have all the bases covered.
I submit that this investigation has the potential, due new technology, to include widespread exposure. That will be good, and it will be bad...
Columbia, and Challenger before it, laid the groundwork for widespread exposure of the stupid things that are done by those previously protected by the culture from disclosure.
We will have to see how everyone reacts. The balance sheet will be written through time, but for me, the worn out buddy sytem and the conspiratorial secrecy that endangers the lives of the public is about to be tested, and there will be many things that are distasteful to know. The good, I believe, will far outweigh the dying rattle of a culture that may be held responsible for needless death, and that by greed.