Jetstar Cadet Scheme Failing To Produce Safe Pilots?
It's not about being "accepted" by the boys. Far from it.
The cadets are very nice guys. 'Most' are fitting in. 'Some' are learning the hard way (Gen Y) not by Skippers, but by the Cabin Crew pulling them into line that it's not all image and Ray Bans.
But most are certainly green when it comes to abnormals, be it some ECAMS, Weather, or general airline left of centre stuff that happens, day in, day out.
And guess what? Line FOs that have done 10 yrs or whatever their story is, in GA (dodgy operators or whatever the stereotype is being made), seem to have a sense of maturity to the exposure.
I'm not against cadets one bit. Far from it. But in the back seat, not the right hand seat for the first year or two in an airline in my opinion. The holes are lining up I'm afraid.
The cadets are very nice guys. 'Most' are fitting in. 'Some' are learning the hard way (Gen Y) not by Skippers, but by the Cabin Crew pulling them into line that it's not all image and Ray Bans.
But most are certainly green when it comes to abnormals, be it some ECAMS, Weather, or general airline left of centre stuff that happens, day in, day out.
And guess what? Line FOs that have done 10 yrs or whatever their story is, in GA (dodgy operators or whatever the stereotype is being made), seem to have a sense of maturity to the exposure.
I'm not against cadets one bit. Far from it. But in the back seat, not the right hand seat for the first year or two in an airline in my opinion. The holes are lining up I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Airborne
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dare anyone to deny that if the pilot at the controls had even a few hundred hours doing G/A IFR work in a non-Airbus aircraft he would have had sufficient base experience to have reverted to attitude+thrust as soon as he felt the aircraft was out of his control.
Not cadet bashing, but in this incident, the evidence is clear as day.
Not cadet bashing, but in this incident, the evidence is clear as day.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Even the US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) still have pilots at the controls.”
Not anymore.
“This situation could have been averted in a conventional control cockpit:”
This exact accident has happened in several “traditional cockpits” including modern glass jets.
“particularly with regard to whether it would even be possible to recover a deeply stalled 330”
Of course it’s possible. BUT, having pulled close to full back stick for so long, the stab would have crept to full nose up and can take up to ONE MINUTE for it to return to neutral with full forward stick. This is a long time for a confused crew who are getting stall warnings AND overspeed warnings at the same time and are not fully clear as to what problem is affecting them.
This was a totally save able situation BUT its arrogant to take the high moral ground when analyzing from the arm chair. Accidents have occurred at the hands of the most experienced crews. The AF crash unfolded VERY quickly with a failure that has caught more than one experienced Airbus pilot unaware. These guys had more master cautions and warnings and ECAMS being thrown at them in one minute than most of us have had in a 4-hour sim mission.
I am glad it didn’t happen to me in the middle of the night with heavy eyelids.
Incoming………
Not anymore.
“This situation could have been averted in a conventional control cockpit:”
This exact accident has happened in several “traditional cockpits” including modern glass jets.
“particularly with regard to whether it would even be possible to recover a deeply stalled 330”
Of course it’s possible. BUT, having pulled close to full back stick for so long, the stab would have crept to full nose up and can take up to ONE MINUTE for it to return to neutral with full forward stick. This is a long time for a confused crew who are getting stall warnings AND overspeed warnings at the same time and are not fully clear as to what problem is affecting them.
This was a totally save able situation BUT its arrogant to take the high moral ground when analyzing from the arm chair. Accidents have occurred at the hands of the most experienced crews. The AF crash unfolded VERY quickly with a failure that has caught more than one experienced Airbus pilot unaware. These guys had more master cautions and warnings and ECAMS being thrown at them in one minute than most of us have had in a 4-hour sim mission.
I am glad it didn’t happen to me in the middle of the night with heavy eyelids.
Incoming………
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Even the US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) still have pilots at the controls.”
Not anymore.
Not anymore.
In recent times I've been looking closely at the AF447 thread(s) over in Tech Log. Lots of opinions, enormous amounts of Technical babble, and even some straight shooting no nonsense stuff! CaptainCloudbuster however IMO has succintly captured the essence of this disaster. What a surreal and unbelievable realisation by the Captain at the very end that he has presided over the loss of everything!
As far as the benefits of GA vs Cadet, an interesting point was made by our head of Check and Training when our first cadets were doing their endorsements in the Sim. He said to me, "Krusty, they're bright, they're sharp, they're eager to learn. BUT, I get the impression they don't really believe the thing can crash!"
Now wheather or not that was true for most or all of them I cannot say. I know the head of C&T is not one who is prone to exagerate. Our operation is somewhat more "Grass Roots" than International heavy Jet transport, so I'm reasonably confident that any such impressions by these guys would by now have been dispelled.
It does however highlight the fact that on evidence, perhaps this crew found it difficult to come to grips with that very fact!
As far as the benefits of GA vs Cadet, an interesting point was made by our head of Check and Training when our first cadets were doing their endorsements in the Sim. He said to me, "Krusty, they're bright, they're sharp, they're eager to learn. BUT, I get the impression they don't really believe the thing can crash!"
Now wheather or not that was true for most or all of them I cannot say. I know the head of C&T is not one who is prone to exagerate. Our operation is somewhat more "Grass Roots" than International heavy Jet transport, so I'm reasonably confident that any such impressions by these guys would by now have been dispelled.
It does however highlight the fact that on evidence, perhaps this crew found it difficult to come to grips with that very fact!
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 24th Dec 2011 at 11:24.
Nunc est bibendum
“Even the US UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) still have pilots at the controls.”
Not anymore
Not anymore
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRA daily operates driverless ore trains and trucks in the Pilbara (and just purchased an additional large number of trucks) apparently driven from within a warehouse in Perth.
Doubtless the have done the studies and accept the inevitable `hull loss' as a deductable business expense.
Recently had a direct entry pilot who had paid for his commercial, ATP plus his A320 rating and 200 hours on type; total around 450 hours. Doing the airline entry simulator sessions (some 15 sessions) in a B737 200/300 sim with manual thrust and little autopilot use it was clearly evident a great lacking in manipulative skills. Particularly so in maintaing the aircraft in trim and flying it; needless to say such things as the SID/Departure went by the board.
The airline he will be as an F/O with operates A320s and I strongly suggest within 6 month any manipulative skills which were refreshed will have disappeared continuing to do so as time passes.
Automatics will be the only thing which will save him in the future assuming they are correctly programmed.
Should they be monitored from the ground and with computer in `real time' monitoring then he may have a long career.
It is no use denying, refusing to accept the concepts of decreasing crew numbers in the flight deck when historically the numbers have continuously reduced and technology is daily in use doing the task.
It may be argued accepting and moving towards this concept would be a safer route to go than manual skills?
The move to MCP tends to supplement this line of thinking where actual aircraft flying skills will increasingly be replaced by simulator time.
Doubtless the have done the studies and accept the inevitable `hull loss' as a deductable business expense.
Recently had a direct entry pilot who had paid for his commercial, ATP plus his A320 rating and 200 hours on type; total around 450 hours. Doing the airline entry simulator sessions (some 15 sessions) in a B737 200/300 sim with manual thrust and little autopilot use it was clearly evident a great lacking in manipulative skills. Particularly so in maintaing the aircraft in trim and flying it; needless to say such things as the SID/Departure went by the board.
The airline he will be as an F/O with operates A320s and I strongly suggest within 6 month any manipulative skills which were refreshed will have disappeared continuing to do so as time passes.
Automatics will be the only thing which will save him in the future assuming they are correctly programmed.
Should they be monitored from the ground and with computer in `real time' monitoring then he may have a long career.
It is no use denying, refusing to accept the concepts of decreasing crew numbers in the flight deck when historically the numbers have continuously reduced and technology is daily in use doing the task.
It may be argued accepting and moving towards this concept would be a safer route to go than manual skills?
The move to MCP tends to supplement this line of thinking where actual aircraft flying skills will increasingly be replaced by simulator time.
Grandpa Aerotart
CRA daily operates driverless ore trains and trucks in the Pilbara (and just purchased an additional large number of trucks) apparently driven from within a warehouse in Perth.
Doubtless the have done the studies and accept the inevitable `hull loss' as a deductable business expense.
Doubtless the have done the studies and accept the inevitable `hull loss' as a deductable business expense.
Recently had a direct entry pilot who had paid for his commercial, ATP plus his A320 rating and 200 hours on type; total around 450 hours. Doing the airline entry simulator sessions (some 15 sessions) in a B737 200/300 sim with manual thrust and little autopilot use it was clearly evident a great lacking in manipulative skills. Particularly so in maintaing the aircraft in trim and flying it; needless to say such things as the SID/Departure went by the board.
The airline he will be as an F/O with operates A320s and I strongly suggest within 6 month any manipulative skills which were refreshed will have disappeared continuing to do so as time passes.
Automatics will be the only thing which will save him in the future assuming they are correctly programmed.
Should they be monitored from the ground and with computer in `real time' monitoring then he may have a long career.
The airline he will be as an F/O with operates A320s and I strongly suggest within 6 month any manipulative skills which were refreshed will have disappeared continuing to do so as time passes.
Automatics will be the only thing which will save him in the future assuming they are correctly programmed.
Should they be monitored from the ground and with computer in `real time' monitoring then he may have a long career.
It is no use denying, refusing to accept the concepts of decreasing crew numbers in the flight deck when historically the numbers have continuously reduced and technology is daily in use doing the task.
It may be argued accepting and moving towards this concept would be a safer route to go than manual skills?
The move to MCP tends to supplement this line of thinking where actual aircraft flying skills will increasingly be replaced by simulator time.
AF447 is not the first or last A330 to suffer this type of failure - its just the first where the pilots crashed the aircraft straight after. It just so happens the two pilots were ex cadets - albeit with 9000hrs between them - and they were unable to fly the aircraft straight and level (ish). No one expected them to fly the aircraft to check ride tolerances just don't haul the side stick full aft and hold it there all the way into the sea. If they sat there with their hands in their laps after hitting the captain call button the aircraft would likely have meandered on until the captain could regain his seat FFS!!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wishiwasupthere
Care to back that up with proof? And not just experimental use of not using a man in the loop, but widespread use. I can guarantee that 99.99% of UAVs flying around the world (certainly in a military sense) aren't doing so completely autonomously.
That said, UAVs in theatre routinely spend a lot of time station keeping autonomously with nobody watching it particularly closely.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They don't have pilots in the traditional sense, ie someone with with any sort of qualification that would allow them to fly a manned helicopter or aeroplane. They're trained specifically as UAV operators. Unlike pilots of manned aircraft, they also often come from the enlisted ranks.
Getting a bit off subject, but thats not entirely true. Larger UAVs (think Preds/Reaper and larger) are still flown largely by traditional pilots (I think the USAF has dabbled in using non aircrew officers to fly UAVs, but they still get trained up to at least PPL level). Certainly the Americans, Brits, us and even the Canucks use qualified pilots for there larger UAVs.
Smaller tactical UAVs (from 'backpack' UAVs up to ScanEagle size) are not usually flown by qualified pilots. Australian ScanEagles were flown by artillery corps troops. God help us all!
As far as enlisted ranks vs officers being pilots, well there was no problem doing that during WWII, and even now the US Army uses Warrant Officers as helicopter pilots, but thats a whole other argument thats been done to death over on the Military Forum.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will expand on my point.
UAV's are more frequently operated by people who have never stepped foot in a cockpit. Call them pilots if you want too.
"there will never be less than 2 pilots on the flight deck of a high capacity jet. Its the cheapest thing in the cockpit."
The pilots are the only cost in the cockpit. Is there anyone else up there earning a salary?
"If they sat there with their hands in their laps after hitting the captain call button the aircraft would likely have meandered on until the captain could regain his seat FFS!!"
Chimbu,
Depending on the precise nature of the failure causing problems with air data information, the bus could be in a situation where the very last thing it would have done is “meander”. I suspect you have never flown the bus? It may have been a situation where simple lack of airspeed was only part of the problem.
UAV's are more frequently operated by people who have never stepped foot in a cockpit. Call them pilots if you want too.
"there will never be less than 2 pilots on the flight deck of a high capacity jet. Its the cheapest thing in the cockpit."
The pilots are the only cost in the cockpit. Is there anyone else up there earning a salary?
"If they sat there with their hands in their laps after hitting the captain call button the aircraft would likely have meandered on until the captain could regain his seat FFS!!"
Chimbu,
Depending on the precise nature of the failure causing problems with air data information, the bus could be in a situation where the very last thing it would have done is “meander”. I suspect you have never flown the bus? It may have been a situation where simple lack of airspeed was only part of the problem.
Grandpa Aerotart
We know what the precise nature of the problem was...'unreliable airspeed' is the page header in a Boeing QRH. The stream of data sent to AF via ACARS confirmed what the nature of the non normal was. The aircraft was giving the crew the info they needed but nothing I have seen suggests the two FOs spent any time working through the ECAM warnings - there were two or three dead give aways in that list.
They still had a PFD/ND/Engine instruments (except maybe EPR) and a GPS derived Ground Speed.
Call me picky but what else do you need to fly straight and level?
No never flown a Bus - many of my mates do, some even Check and Train on them - very happy in the 777 thank you very much.
Two well trained pilots are the cheapest thing you can put in a cockpit - compared to the billions that would be wasted certifying, or trying to, a computer to do it.
Humans are fallible yes - that applies equally to computer programmers as it does to pilots. If they have proved nothing else Airbus designers have proved that.
They still had a PFD/ND/Engine instruments (except maybe EPR) and a GPS derived Ground Speed.
Call me picky but what else do you need to fly straight and level?
No never flown a Bus - many of my mates do, some even Check and Train on them - very happy in the 777 thank you very much.
Two well trained pilots are the cheapest thing you can put in a cockpit - compared to the billions that would be wasted certifying, or trying to, a computer to do it.
Humans are fallible yes - that applies equally to computer programmers as it does to pilots. If they have proved nothing else Airbus designers have proved that.
Grandpa Aerotart
c173 while Australia and PNG GA have been the training grounds for a LOT of very successful and highly skilled airline pilots its also supplied quite a few absolute dickheads.
Cadetships supply utter dickheads too.
% wise its probably a wash.
In the old days you could beat the ******** out of most and fail/sack the died in the wool dickheads - now that is against the law.
GA without structure and self discipline is NOT the same as the old 3rd level airline system was years ago - The Kendals/Hazos/Talair/Tillair type companies that supplied a LOT of pilots with LOTS of HIGH quality experience.
Having said that I am sick to death with the mantra of 2000hr meat bombing GA cowboys - that I suspect is MOSTLY propagated by cadets because thats what they are told by HR - 2000hr meat bombing cowboys NEVER got into airlines.
Cadetships supply utter dickheads too.
% wise its probably a wash.
In the old days you could beat the ******** out of most and fail/sack the died in the wool dickheads - now that is against the law.
GA without structure and self discipline is NOT the same as the old 3rd level airline system was years ago - The Kendals/Hazos/Talair/Tillair type companies that supplied a LOT of pilots with LOTS of HIGH quality experience.
Having said that I am sick to death with the mantra of 2000hr meat bombing GA cowboys - that I suspect is MOSTLY propagated by cadets because thats what they are told by HR - 2000hr meat bombing cowboys NEVER got into airlines.
Sorry C173, I think I miss your point. Whats your no come back argument?
Cadets have been happening throughout the world for some time. Its only now that Oz GA pilots are finding that they can no longer buy their type rating and their jet job, because someone else has bought the type rating before them, that it seems to have become a problem. It would seem that the conditions of employment for these cadets was agreed upon by the federation and the Jetstar pilot body, so why should anyone not in this group care? Unless it stops them buying their own way in.
If the quality of the graduated cadet released to line seems be a problem, it would be a problem with the training department for not doing their job correctly. If there is a problem with the ex GA skygod captains flying with graduated cadets, it would once again be a problem with the training department for the quality of its command course.
Where I work at the moment, cadets graduate straight to the right hand seat of the A330 or B777. They are required to pass the same checks to the same standard as none cadet FOs. If they can't, they are either retrained or dismissed. The next flight after they graduate may be over the Bay of Bengal in the middle of the monsoon, or to Moscow in the middle of winter. When they achieve 6000hrs, they are eligible for a command. They complete the same upgrade course to the same standard as everyone else or they don't pass.
This company has been hiring between 500 to 700 pilots a year from many years. At the moment they are taking all the ex ryan air and easy jet ex cadets they can get, as they are very happy with the high standard of the product that is produced. At these companies ex cadet FOs may be offered commands on A320s or B737 with as little as 2500hrs.
The best experience for a future A320/B737 captain is to fly a A320/B737 and to be taught how to operate it correctly. Working for a GA company being paid under award salaries, flying antique aircraft VFR may prepare you for the ever decreasing T&Cs of the aviation industry (see the above about buying type ratings etc), but does little else.
If you go the GA route enjoy the flying and the variety and the special locations. Just because you have done the hard yards does not entitle you anything except more hard yards. The world has moved on. If you go the Cadet route be careful hiring a light aircraft for that weekend fly away, as you will have no idea of how those small aircraft work.
The Don
Cadets have been happening throughout the world for some time. Its only now that Oz GA pilots are finding that they can no longer buy their type rating and their jet job, because someone else has bought the type rating before them, that it seems to have become a problem. It would seem that the conditions of employment for these cadets was agreed upon by the federation and the Jetstar pilot body, so why should anyone not in this group care? Unless it stops them buying their own way in.
If the quality of the graduated cadet released to line seems be a problem, it would be a problem with the training department for not doing their job correctly. If there is a problem with the ex GA skygod captains flying with graduated cadets, it would once again be a problem with the training department for the quality of its command course.
Where I work at the moment, cadets graduate straight to the right hand seat of the A330 or B777. They are required to pass the same checks to the same standard as none cadet FOs. If they can't, they are either retrained or dismissed. The next flight after they graduate may be over the Bay of Bengal in the middle of the monsoon, or to Moscow in the middle of winter. When they achieve 6000hrs, they are eligible for a command. They complete the same upgrade course to the same standard as everyone else or they don't pass.
This company has been hiring between 500 to 700 pilots a year from many years. At the moment they are taking all the ex ryan air and easy jet ex cadets they can get, as they are very happy with the high standard of the product that is produced. At these companies ex cadet FOs may be offered commands on A320s or B737 with as little as 2500hrs.
The best experience for a future A320/B737 captain is to fly a A320/B737 and to be taught how to operate it correctly. Working for a GA company being paid under award salaries, flying antique aircraft VFR may prepare you for the ever decreasing T&Cs of the aviation industry (see the above about buying type ratings etc), but does little else.
If you go the GA route enjoy the flying and the variety and the special locations. Just because you have done the hard yards does not entitle you anything except more hard yards. The world has moved on. If you go the Cadet route be careful hiring a light aircraft for that weekend fly away, as you will have no idea of how those small aircraft work.
The Don
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
Under certain situations involving loss of airspeed and/or ADR problems along with flight control law degradation, the A320/330/340 etc can be providing the pilot with false overspeed warnings AS WELL AS stall warnings. In such a situation, the overspeed protections may become active providing the pilot with a nose up bias that requires constant forward pressure until the failure is resolved or the affected ADR is switched off. I know of several very experienced pilots that have been tripped up in the sim with failures such as these.
Again, sitting on ones hands in such a situation would not work.
I ask you, why did an experienced crew crash an MD11 recently in NRT. Why did an experienced crew crash a 737 in Jamaica recently?
Are these accidents not debated so much simply because they were not crewed by cadets?
Under certain situations involving loss of airspeed and/or ADR problems along with flight control law degradation, the A320/330/340 etc can be providing the pilot with false overspeed warnings AS WELL AS stall warnings. In such a situation, the overspeed protections may become active providing the pilot with a nose up bias that requires constant forward pressure until the failure is resolved or the affected ADR is switched off. I know of several very experienced pilots that have been tripped up in the sim with failures such as these.
Again, sitting on ones hands in such a situation would not work.
I ask you, why did an experienced crew crash an MD11 recently in NRT. Why did an experienced crew crash a 737 in Jamaica recently?
Are these accidents not debated so much simply because they were not crewed by cadets?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POWER + ATTITUDE = PERFORMANCE
At the end of the day people remember that first lesson POWER + ATTITUDE = PERFORMANCE
I see power + attitude = performance repeated over and over but it is only true in specific circumstances. Those circumstances apply virtually all the time for commercial flying, but AF447 escaped them.
The real equation is power + attitude + AOA + weight = performance (and you could probably add other factors too).
Power + attitude = performance is a good approximation, when flying on the front side of the power curve. Not so good where AF447 found themselves.
Also, IIRC the stall warning was confusing as the AOA was out of range much of the time and the stall warning didn't sound. It only sounded when they input forward stick, the aircraft began to recover and the AOA returned to the "valid" range.
It's easy to say a better pilot would have recovered, but think about what they saw:
- TOGA thrust and 11 degrees nose up attitude
- Instruments say they are descending
- Low airspeed value
- Stall warning sounds when they give forward stick
It sounds confusing to me. How many pilots could really recover the aircraft, on instruments from this situation with no forewarning? How many might decide the pitot/static and stall indications appeared to be unreliable, and fly power + attitude = performance e.g. TOGA thrust & 11 degrees nose up attitude?
c173,
I guess I just can't see why you would suggest Australian pilots are better than any others. I have flown and worked with good pilots from all over the world. I have also flown and worked with some shockers, Australians included. There are lots of Oz pilots around the world because Oz aviation is a ever degenerating sheltered workshop. I am not sure if flying up and down the east coast qualifies anyone as the "worlds best pilots". I think the real world extends far beyond Australia's beautiful shores.
Does the cadet pilot pass the same CPL ATPL exams to the same standard as your normal pilot? Does the cadet pilot have to pass the MCIR to the same standard as your normal pilot? Does the cadet pilot have to pass his type rating course to the same standard as the non cadet? Times are changing mate. Not saying its all good or right, but I don't think the cadet is the problem here.
The Don
I guess I just can't see why you would suggest Australian pilots are better than any others. I have flown and worked with good pilots from all over the world. I have also flown and worked with some shockers, Australians included. There are lots of Oz pilots around the world because Oz aviation is a ever degenerating sheltered workshop. I am not sure if flying up and down the east coast qualifies anyone as the "worlds best pilots". I think the real world extends far beyond Australia's beautiful shores.
Does the cadet pilot pass the same CPL ATPL exams to the same standard as your normal pilot? Does the cadet pilot have to pass the MCIR to the same standard as your normal pilot? Does the cadet pilot have to pass his type rating course to the same standard as the non cadet? Times are changing mate. Not saying its all good or right, but I don't think the cadet is the problem here.
The Don
Andrewr,
15 nose up and TOGA will work below 10000'. It will not work at FL380. Normal cruise attitude at .82 is around 2.5 degrees up. To increase this to 15 nose up, even with what power TOGA would give up there will never have a happy ending. The 330 has not got the performance to sustain even 10 nose up at an ALT near max or even optimum. To recover an upset at altitude you would need to lower to/or below normal cruise attitude to recover speed.
The big problem with this accident is that situational awareness was lost, and never regained. The unreliable airspeed recall is useful if this happens down low, but ain't gonna work if you use the same numbers up high. Luckily this has been learned from this accident and is being reenforced/taught by a lot of airlines now.
The Don
15 nose up and TOGA will work below 10000'. It will not work at FL380. Normal cruise attitude at .82 is around 2.5 degrees up. To increase this to 15 nose up, even with what power TOGA would give up there will never have a happy ending. The 330 has not got the performance to sustain even 10 nose up at an ALT near max or even optimum. To recover an upset at altitude you would need to lower to/or below normal cruise attitude to recover speed.
The big problem with this accident is that situational awareness was lost, and never regained. The unreliable airspeed recall is useful if this happens down low, but ain't gonna work if you use the same numbers up high. Luckily this has been learned from this accident and is being reenforced/taught by a lot of airlines now.
The Don