Originally Posted by
Chronus
alf5071h`s post is by far the most thought provoking thus far on this thread. I would humbly respond as follows.
Advances in automation have reached a level such that a threat of unintended consequences may be in emergence. The original intention of these advances were to assist and ease pilot work load, enable him to remain mentally alert and physically fit to deal with any possible threats that may be encountered. However these advances also mean that pilot work load has been reduced to such a low level that the pilot is inactive for long periods of time and loses concentration. He is carried rather being the carrier. He becomes a passenger and is no longer the pilot, the person whose mind and body commands and directs the flight.
An understanding of HF in this scenario does therefore require require significant expertise to argue and judge the technical, mainly the psychological issues involved. Inevitably and increasingly, the legal beagles do inevitably need the opinion of an expert witness in cases coming before the courts.
Can only agree with this.
Automation has replaced advancing a lever always used, with pressing a button almost never used.
The designer of that button has responsibility to make it as safe or safer than that which it replaced.
Did they succeed?
Many on here are undoubtedly right that the crew failed.
They make reasonable statements about this, but then draw conclusions that fail a simple test of logic.
They assume that because the crew failed, therefore the design of the button did not fail.
That conclusion simply does not follow.
If this button is going to remove your hand from a perfectly natural control, and then isn't going to do the only thing you could possibly intend it to do, why ISN'T that even enunciated?