Originally posted by Gabriel
View Post
If I had an airline and found that one of my pilots had lost speeds, failed to execute the established procedure (where nothing prevented it) and rode it out without incident, that pilot is going to be reprimanded. The reasons for procedures go beyond what is needed to control the plane. They come from everything that has been learned from accident investigations and all that knowledge is worthless if pilots don't value it. Human factors, complex systems interdependencies, stealth factors, uneven pilot proficiency, these are the hidden dangers.
Again, following the procedure is the best and only acceptable option, just not the only viable one.
1) Execute well-trained and memorized procedure > stabilize > CRM > whatever is viable.
2) Where well-trained and memorized procedures are not available (or forgotten), then skip to whatever is viable.
Keeping in mind that 'viable' is a subjective assessment subject to grievious human error.
I have a little more sympathy for the PNF who, by the design of the Airbus control system, had no feedback on what control inputs the PF was doing
My point is that I would not trust a pilot with following any specific procedure for any specific condition in any specific airplane type if they don't give me confidence that they are capable to use their general workmanship to do better than what AF did. Or Colgan. Or Pinnacle.
Leave a comment: