Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Teach process, and results speak for themselves.
Hmm... Do you not think that process has its place? I agree that it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all, but I've heard far too many pilots interviewed after successful recovery from an incident saying words to the effect of "things went south really fast... and then the training kicked in" to dismiss it entirely. Going back to procedures when the situation threatens to overwhelm your cognitive functions can be a very useful thing, and when applied correctly can seem to be a lifesaver.
In the case of AF447, it seems likely that no procedure was ever followed from AP disconnect onwards, and the unfortunate PF remained overwhelmed from start to finish.
The media have focused on the PF being the least experienced flight crew member in terms of hours, and that seems to have led to an assumption in some quarters that he went straight into the RHS of an Airbus and did practically nothing but program the automatics and fly the occasional take off and approach. This is not true - while the lack of high-altitude manual handling training definitely didn't help, the PF - as I said above - was a sailplane pilot, and apparently qualified to a high degree in that regard. There is no "Otto" or "George" in a sailplane, and if you stall the wing in one you'd better get the nose down, because there is no TOGA setting to power out of it.
I'm still rather concerned that the "inexperienced PF" angle is getting more play than the "startle effect" one.