Originally Posted by
PEI_3721
But ...
Passing your check ride will not ensure that you act correctly in all situations, especially in circumstances which demand high mental workload or rely on experience.
Not a good reply, since it implies that the only time you have to be "on" is during a check ride. We both know that isn't so. Many companies have FOQA programs ... can't recall if Asiana does or not, but I suspect they do. Let's not forget the general requirement for a stabilized approach applies to the visual approach, does it not? Being 20 knots off is hardly stabilized in the end game, no less 35 or so.
If you aren't maintaining airspeed, and correcting it when it's wrong, you aren't flying the plane,
the plane is flying you. Apologies for further digression, will stop.
@ATC: I fully embrace the importance of human factors, based on the mishap I was in and the ones I investigated. I also used to teach CRM. I understand the issues of supervisory/cultural errors, and the power of norms both formal and informal. On top of that, I am very cognizant of cockpit gradients since during my time in the Navy, flying, that particular issue got massive amounts of attention and the difference between what goes on in a cockpit in 1983 and 2003 was profound. Beyond that, I was once getting a check ride from the Naval Air Forces NATOPS evaluator who, inadvertently, while giving me a simulated engine failure actually pulled the engine off line. (hehe, the debrief on that one was good fun). We put the bird on the deck, got it all started again, and proceeded to complete the check ride. (We handled the engine loss as a crew right out of the PCL/emergency action items, just as you'd hope).
If we are to try and compare Asiana with LaMia, perhaps the only useful point of comparison is in the cockpit gradient on the flight involved -- but I am
guessing at that. We have one report and not the other one to refer to.