coastalpilot,
I think you are being a little to narrow in your analysis.
YES an IP should have detected, called, and ultimately corrected the low-speed situate=ion, but, then so should any competent FO- AND, new to type or not, the LHS pilot was not a cadet- he was an experienced commander changing types, who already held a Type Rating on the Aircraft. Maintaining airspeed on approach would not seem to be an unreasonable expectation.
While you are quick to find an individual to blame, you miss asking an important question- WHY would an IP, even an inexperienced one, not monitor and correct a low airspeed situation?
THAT is where a deeper investigation into attitude, training and culture may reveal problems we can fix.
Simply saying "It was His fault" does nothing to prevent things like this happening again....................................................... .............
sorry I dont know proper way to quote and respond clearly so I just copied your comment..
as to the possibility that someone else could have also made the same mistakes as the IP, I don't see what that has to do with it. His was the ultimate responsibility, not the PF.
as to the reasons why the IP failed, I agree they are more important than the fact. I alluded to them in my comment about "institutional failure." Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Thanks for pointing it out.
The real failure was the certification of an IP that did not do his job. Its a big job.
Its a certification/training problem since the airline certified the IP to do a job he failed at his first time out.
a big one.
imo all the angst about the deterioration of hand flying skills is obscuring the real failure. I think its absolutely understandable, even predictable, that the PF would have problems with that approach...new airplane, special airport,(with a very unique visual approach procedure and requirements), back of the clock fatique...and so on.
but the company certified a IP who didnt do his job.
that was the problem, imo.