(again: from a pure layman)
From my understanding, the reason why VNAV wouldn't have been as useful as an ILS approach, is that it seems (again, from naive outsider perspective) like these guys were *used* to ILS approaches.
Why make them do something they're not used to if it's not necessary? I've read a lot on this thread about "a 16 year old kid with a pilot's license should be able to perform a visual approach". It's more subtle than that.
The main issue is that they were asked to PARTIALLY interact with complex automated systems. This requires tremendous amounts of brain power. That load prevented them from looking at the airspeed (as egregious as that may be). The statements in this thread about whether or not autothrust was/should have been engaged read like legal documents. If they were 100% hand flying (NO AUTOTHRUST) this probably wouldn't have happened. The root cause is that they were doing something which i) wasn't completely routine for them and ii) involved interacting with complex (partial) automation. It's NOT that they weren't good enough at "stick and rudder"... it's that they weren't good enough at the video game (the complex automation).
Should pilots train to do non-routine things that they're not used to? Sure: in the sim. Should they have been able to handle a visual approach? Of course. Was a visual approach "routine" for them? (Seems no). Should it have been routine for them (on that precise type)? (I don't know since I'm not in the industry). Did the fact that they were required to do something that was not "routine" cause the accident? Yes.
Last edited by Shademaster; 11th Jul 2013 at 05:18.