Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Dozy, please don't forget the following points that are troubling to many who fly:
I don't and haven't - it's just that there are aspects to all of these that require closer examination.
Being able to fly straight and level, on instruments, is a core skill required of a professional pilot. The pilot at the controls in AF 447 was unable to do that. He didn't do it. Why? That needs to be addressed.
Exactly, and this illustrates the point I was making about understanding startle response. Everything about the PF's background (being a qualified glider pilot, among other things) suggests that he should have been more than competent to handle the situation despite the lack of HA manual handling training, yet it would appear he was so spooked that his abilities deserted him at the worst possible moment - why?
Being able to fly a visual approach, a stable approach, is a core competency of a professional pilot. The crew in Asiana did not. ... The crew ... made the go around decision many seconds too late. Why? That needs to be addressed.
Of course it does. But at the same time, one has to consider that pushing on with an approach when conditions are marginal has caused a plethora of incidents and accidents for airlines of any nationality you care to name. Colloquially known as "get-there-itis", the problem is as old as dirt.
Flying in icing conditions, one has to use and know how to use the de=ice equipment, and one has to keep one's airspeed on profile on approach in instrument conditions. (For Colgan, fatigue, and the culture of the company are of course rightly indicted.) I say again, you have to fly on airspeed, on profile, if you are a professional pilot. For whatever reason you'd like to offer, the crew in the Colgan didn't. Why? That needs to be addressed.
Colgan weren't in significant icing conditions when they crashed, that was the point. Fatigue and culture were as you say rightly indicted, but an opportunity to explore startle response was missed.
But do you really think that root causes will be addressed?
They'd better - or we're in trouble.
[EDIT : Just read Fox3's post, and for what it's worth I reckon the 74 skipper he spoke to did his profession a disservice by being so unrelentingly cynical. In my experience the only way to make a difference for the better is to work from the inside out, and if to do so would not cause too much financial hardship, then being in a position to be the kind of mentor the new guys need despite the industry would likely be a hell of a satisfying career move. On the other hand I must confess that despite being paid a compliment that keeps me warm on cold nights from the TRE on our sim experiments (namely that he thought I more than had it in me to be a decent pilot), my honest answer was that I simply couldn't afford it. ]