Over the years Pprune has provided a view of the wide range of human behaviours.
This thread continues the education; there are those who cannot deviate from innate bias seeking to blame who or whatever.
Some posters are pilots, a surprising indication of the ineffectiveness of HF training; and if any of these graduate to management then what hope of a just culture.
The more enlightened, increasingly struggle with the incredulity of human activity, but perhaps overlook the subtleties of change, both in technology and how it is being used - training.
The legal issues might involve a comparison between operational views and those of the designer.
It might be reasonable to conclude that the susceptibility for error in this situation was high, particularly in the short time scale and low probability of occurrence, whereas a manufacturer with longer time scales, research and development, and in-service feedback should have provided greater protection.
And what if there had been similar situations, but recovered by the crew. Or what if these is evidence of system weakness in other areas or in similarly designed aircraft.
CT, #53, is an astute observation of differences amongst types; not that one is better than the other, but more about the choice of how systems are integrated, and the interface with the human, and operational situations.
In this accident there is evidence that the crew detected the error, but were not able to react in time. How many similar situations involving human ‘saves’ have not been reported, because the error was corrected. How many of us have had to repress the TOGA switches or reset AT arm to achieve take off thrust, how did we detect the error, what time did had we have to correct it?
Is it easier to detect an error in a system involving a button press and then look for thrust lever movement; or in a system where the thrust levers must to be moved to activate the change and then look at (confirm) the thrust setting.
For the legal beagles; is aviation approaching a point where conventional legal process cannot be applied; like very complex fraud cases where significant expertise is required to argue and judge the technicalities?
Last edited by alf5071h; 18th Aug 2017 at 21:17.