A variation on what may be a familiar flight safety approach to some here is quoted in Beyond Aviation Human Factors, (by Dan Maurino, Jim Reason, Neil Johnston & Bob Lee, 1995), is what was called the substitution test. As far as I can recall, (not far, these days), the question has not been asked on the thread.
It is a common one when doing various tests within a Just Culture, but I think it is particularly relevant here when we're trying to sort out ways of examining cockpit behaviours, ergonomics and human factors. What it helps do in normal practise of airline work is place issues succinctly before those who must manage a Just Culture on a day-by-day basis and handle events which their airline's safety and data programs present, some of them serious. They are examining the "incidents" before they occur, so to speak and this is one way to sort out which way to focus when fixing a problem that is emerging in the data.
So the context is a bit different here I know, but not that different that the question can't reasonably be asked. And it may also help some put on new glasses to see flight safety work and these programs in a new way even if in this case the accident has occurred.
The point is to consider, think and imagine a bit further than focussing too closely on this or that isolated theory, and such a question helps move one off top-dead-center, so to speak.
If someone else who had the same qualifications on the airplane and similar experience ran into the same circumstances (which weren't that unusual for the area), the question asked is, "In the light of existing knowledge and how events unfolded sequentially, is it probable that this new individual would have behaved any differently?"
Last edited by PJ2; 2nd Oct 2014 at 07:34.