Originally Posted by
Lyman
... a term like nugget is demeaning, and serves in the long run to cement a conclusion that may not be accurate, that the PF was some kind of flustered 'rookie'.
Not necessarily - remember that even the most competent and experienced pilots have made grave mistakes while under duress.
Originally Posted by
UNCTUOUS
When abstract and abstruse technology runs amok, it needs to be immediately apparent to a flight crew that anything (or everything?) in technoville is becoming unstuck.... or even just on its way out. Fortunately there is (prospectively) a digital way to do that - to "in your face" alert the crew of an imminent GIGO fiasco (GIGO = garbage in/ Garbage out). But more on that in a moment.....
Originally Posted by
RR_NDB
So, SURPRISES to the crew must be reduced to a minimum. Why not to ALERT CREW IMMEDIATELY when the System will face UAS? This is particularly important because there are risks of GIGO.
Because it's one of the most difficult situations to reliably work out - as has been stated previously. The fact that the CVR transcript has the PNF reporting no speeds at 02:10:15, despite the NAV ADR DISAGREE message not appearing until past 02:12 implies that at least half the crew on the flight deck were well aware what the problem was. This flatly contradicts any assertion that the systems were not providing the relevant information to the crew.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
On a basic level, perhaps a more critical look at the parameters of autopilot in Turbulence?
How many times can one person say "The turbulence was not sufficient to cause AP disconnect" before you believe them?