jc, your opinions aren't helping explain this to a layman.
The dual problems of training and proficiency have been beaten to death. I am trying to make neutral and helpful replies. Where I fail to do so, please help explain to this layman.
Our friend algobotur initiated his inquiry with a seeming belief in AutoPilot as a tool and a fail safe. I have tried to explain to him how that is an invalid approach to take in understanding this tragic accident.
The core flying principle involved in my explanation to a layman is that you fly the airplane, and use various AutoPilot features help you in doing so, or in managing your task load. I suppose we should explain that AutoPilot is required for use as much as possible by many companies since they find fuel (and thus cost) savings from modern automated flying tools.
I suppose we can then explain that if the pilots, like our departed friends in AF 447, spent a great deal of their flying time monitoring the function of AutoPilot rather than flying themselves, the sharpness of their hand flying skills may have eroded. I think it's fair to say that many pilots believe that industry wide situation contributed to this accident. But that's also a conclusion with significant discussion and debate remaining.
It ought to be a major point of concern to the airline industry, since the pilot is expected to fly the plane regardless of how many sub systems are acting up.
Whether or not Air France, and its pilot training and quality programs, are about the same as, worse than, or better than the industry norm is to me unknown, and may be unknowable.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 28th Feb 2013 at 15:03.