Originally Posted by
HeliComparator
I'm not sure it's that astonishing if you mean the crew error. Pilots make errors, get over it!
What we need is error tolerance built in, such as clearly defined procedures whereby both pilots know exactly what is expected to transpire, and using the automation to its best advantage so the pilots can focus on the "big picture".
Please - let's leave automation out of this.
This is not an automation issue.
This crash was caused by 2 pilots not carrying out their duties.
Pressing the IAS button would have reduced the required monitoring to a degree but not the duties of the crew.
Not sure about anyone else but if I know weather is 'doggers' I tend to pay that bit more attention during the approach???
So, if the crew were not monitoring the flight - I would be interested to know what were they doing?
I am fully aware pilots make mistakes (even monkeys fall out of trees!) but this 'error' appeared to extend for majority of the important part of the approach, starting with a woefully inadequate brief considering the known conditions.
There was an interesting line which confirmed that 'non-operational' crew discussion had been omitted from the report........
Shame as we might have learnt something.
Like most reports - the reader is often baffled as to why the crew reacted/behaved in a certain way. Please do not think that having the OEM prescribe how to use their aircraft will reduce accidents - fixed-wing have had such manuals for a while and still fall out of the sky due to all manner of automation-related reasons.
Very sad account with such a tragic outcome.