tilnextime
As you have quoted me may I respond. Firstly, I think your post is thought provoking and intelligently argued. I merely posted to give an operator's perspective. I don't have an agenda and I am not suggesting a methodology for conducting the accident investigation. That is not an area I have any experience in.
I hear what you are saying about standards etc and you may have a good point there. However, is it wrong to ask whether some of the manoeuvres pilots are asked to perform are "sensible". Perhaps I am seeing shades of grey where you are seeing rules as black and white. I will give you an example. My company, based on flight data monitoring, has sent representatives to ATC at some of the airports where there is a clear trend towards unstable approaches. Of course the buck stops with the commander and if he sees an unstable approach then whether PF/PNF he MUST ensure a go around is flown. However, is it really a good idea to have been given vectors that made such an event all but inevitable in the first place. Note these are not approaches that are illegal in any way. I believe not many companies have taken the initiative in this respect and it has been welcomed by the ATC departments concerned. Sadly, I can't take any credit here personally.
As for the unions taking a proactive approach, no pun intended, then I wish them well. In the UK BALPA are doing exactly that with respect to Flight Time Limitations or at least trying to. Regarding training syllabi I am not sure whether they can influence them that much. It is, I agree, an excellent idea. Apologies, to all, for the thread drift.