Another 737 down

[Vraciu]

Did you read the quote above?  "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes." 

It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
 

Bingo.

[Puma44]

Did you read the quote above?  "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes." 

It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
 

Exactly.

[Arlo]

Did you read the quote above?  "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes." 

Which isn't even close to your previous assertion. At best, its a presumption of Scully having supposedly said that his training played no part in his outcomes. Reading a quote and turning into a different meaning are different things.

[pembquist]

Did you read the quote above?  "But Mr. Sullenberger said he did not believe that better pilot training alone would have prevented the crashes." 

It's a ridiculous statement. Pilot knowledge is exactly what prevented a crash when the jump seat pilot turned off the MCAS in a previous flight of the same aircraft with the same failed sensor.
 

I don't know about exactly, it might have more to do with being at a remove from the flight controls and instruments and in some sense having a better view of what was going on. I remember reading about a crash, (I think an Air Inda 747,) that was spatial disorientation at night with a failed horizon on the captains side, the cockpit voicer recorder had someone,(jump seater or engineer,) saying something like "not that one, THAT ONE" referring to which horizon was correct.

While I know that a lot of you will disagree, and some quite stridently, I have to say that the commentary here exhibits quite a lot of hindsight bias and outcome bias. These are not character flaws they are just part of a human nature that has equipped us with the ability to be the animal that has dominated the planet and are pretty hard to overcome.

The problem with this problem is that narrative has gotten so muddied and freighted with peoples preconceptions and with politics that it is hard to believe that a dispassionate investigative process is possible as what interstellar body of air safety is going to do it? I believe in the NTSB and I feel that that is where the best accident analysis will come from and the best idea of how to fix the problem. Unfortunately this is story with legs and there are, in my opinion, a lot of dishonest actors involved and so a mangled story that seems to flee from nuance is what we are left with.

If you are interested in accidents of a complex technical nature and human error here is a book: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257

[FLS]

Which isn't even close to your previous assertion. At best, its a presumption of Scully having supposedly said that his training played no part in his outcomes. Reading a quote and turning into a different meaning are different things.

Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.

Pembquist I get your point. I believe it used to be an argument for a flight engineer.   

Current thinking is that two paychecks in the cockpit are enough. The assumption being that they are competent and properly trained.

[Arlo]

Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.

Devolution of what means what in your stated opinion. Not his. Anyway, carry on. 

[Vraciu]

I don't know about exactly, it might have more to do with being at a remove from the flight controls and instruments and in some sense having a better view of what was going on. I remember reading about a crash, (I think an Air Inda 747,) that was spatial disorientation at night with a failed horizon on the captains side, the cockpit voicer recorder had someone,(jump seater or engineer,) saying something like "not that one, THAT ONE" referring to which horizon was correct.

While I know that a lot of you will disagree, and some quite stridently, I have to say that the commentary here exhibits quite a lot of hindsight bias and outcome bias. These are not character flaws they are just part of a human nature that has equipped us with the ability to be the animal that has dominated the planet and are pretty hard to overcome.

The problem with this problem is that narrative has gotten so muddied and freighted with peoples preconceptions and with politics that it is hard to believe that a dispassionate investigative process is possible as what interstellar body of air safety is going to do it? I believe in the NTSB and I feel that that is where the best accident analysis will come from and the best idea of how to fix the problem. Unfortunately this is story with legs and there are, in my opinion, a lot of dishonest actors involved and so a mangled story that seems to flee from nuance is what we are left with.

If you are interested in accidents of a complex technical nature and human error here is a book: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error/dp/0754648257

Human factors is at the core of what we train.   "Human factors can be mitigated but never eliminated" is a mantra I invented (or accidentally stole from someone) and gets to the heart of the issue.  It's why we train train train train.    We call it FORESIGHT BIAS so that we don't have ourselves read about in an accident report.

The NTSB will do a good job.  What is done with their report is another matter.  The Egypt Air suicide 767 crash is a prime example of what happens when the feelings of Snowflake Nation are more important than raw truth.

[Vraciu]

Implied meaning is a thing. You don't have to copy paste to preserve meaning. He clearly stated that better training alone wasn't a fix. Hence his superior training wasn't the critical factor in his simulator session. In other words, it wasn't better training.

Pembquist I get your point. I believe it used to be an argument for a flight engineer.   

Current thinking is that two paychecks in the cockpit are enough. The assumption being that they are competent and properly trained.

He seems to believe his own press a little too much.   His F/O has stayed out of the limelight and I think that's the proper approach. 

[FLS]

He seems to believe his own press a little too much.   His F/O has stayed out of the limelight and I think that's the proper approach. 

I can understand not blaming the pilots when they are certified as trained and competent. But I'll blame the pilots before the airplane.

[Arlo]

I can understand not blaming the pilots when they are certified as trained and competent. But I'll blame the pilots before the airplane.

That's rather out of hand, isn't it?

[FLS]

I suppose if you can blame guns for violence you can blame planes for crashing but reality isn't PC.

And spare me the nit-picking exceptions. The number one reason for aircraft accidents is pilot error.

[Arlo]

I suppose if you can blame guns for violence you can blame planes for crashing but reality isn't PC.

And spare me the nit-picking exceptions. The number one reason for aircraft accidents is pilot error.

Reality is reality. Answers tend to involve more thought and time. Coming to instant conclusions on the topic at hand (attempted correlation set aside, I suppose, as out of place as it was) is not a sign of following the topic from multiple valid perspectives (especially if your not a pilot or accident investigator, yourself). Yes, I'm comfortable with reality and my place in it. 

[FLS]

Reality is reality. Answers tend to involve more thought and time. Coming to instant conclusions on the topic at hand (attempted correlation set aside, I suppose, as out of place as it was) is not a sign of following the topic from multiple valid perspectives (especially if your not a pilot or accident investigator, yourself). Yes, I'm comfortable with reality and my place in it. 

Your instant conclusions must be the exception.  Mine are bad, yours are good. Got it. No obvious issues there.

[Arlo]

Your instant conclusions must be the exception.  Mine are bad, yours are good. Got it. No obvious issues there.

What instant conclusion, regarding the topic at hand, have I spat out as if I am the ranking Captain Obvious, darling?

[FLS]

Everything you've ever criticized about my posts. Which have mostly been your misunderstandings. Proving your point but proving it about you.

Enough digression.  You may disagree. I'm done.