Response to Solyent
Solyent wrote...
"So, from a cognitive perspective, the accident makes sense. A big part of this was the human-machine interface, which did an extremely poor job of letting the pilots know what was actually going on.
Could they have done better? Of course. Are they entirely, or even primarily to blame? Far from it. "
__________________________
I'll take you task on this Solyent. From the cognitive perspective you have considered a limited set of factors....but assuming your argument holds for the cognitive circumstances prevailing in the cockpit, the accident still does not make sense. The cognitive environment informing the aircraft and avionics designers - even after all the accidents and incidents we have had over many years - leaves much to be desired. Bad HMI engineering, poor scenario modeling, poor checks on corner cases/bounday cases, poor design processes and inadequate checks (as well as poor pitot design) have led to a situation where, possibly, a set of cognitive elements have conspired to deliver this outcome. Bad, bad design and the usual chain of events at work.
Are they entirely, or even primarily to blame? They most certainly are. They are charged as professional pilots to mantain complete discipline and situational awareness in the cockpit at all times. No distractions, no excuses. They accepted the rank, pay and responsibility. They failed. Bad circumstances no doubt. Sensory confusion, loss of external references....never fun. But their responsibility through and through).