04-16-2018, 06:33 AM
Ben Cook has written a highly descriptive story with some interesting analysis.
But with respect there might be other judgements that go right to the most critical element of cause. Quote:-
“exacerbates the upcoming problems for this crew: some critical weather information was either passed incorrectly or not at all.”
This surely is the question; and if “not at all” or “incorrectly” is true then surely it is very difficult to see that any appreciable blame should fall on the shoulders of the crew. Reading other analysis by PAIN contributors at the AuntyPru website, with time lines, it seems that if certain weather reports had been passed to the crew then they would have had reason, and sufficient fuel, for a diversion to an alternate airport.
This is the impression that is given, please correct if wrong.
Thus a failure to communicate critical weather information did not “exacerbate the upcoming problems” because to that point there was no problem(s).
In which case it then might also follow to give less weight to sleep deprivation as a factor of cause, though obvious enough that proper procedures seemed to be lacking and corrective action was called for.
The above is a comment submitted to the Australian Flying website but further points, hopefully to be taken as respectful criticism, here in addition.
In common with some other writings about the ditching its notable that the individuals named are not accorded with their full names or formal titles. They should be, along with some discussion regarding the role of the co-pilot.
In regard to Ben Cook’s question: “When was the last time you were confronted with extreme levels of stress that have the capacity to cause emotional instability and loss of fine motor skills?
I could say last year putting a C150 with engine trouble after takeoff into a wet paddock. Would that do? Or talking to the local ag pilot with three forced landings to his credit, one with a double mag failure, I expect he would know. Perhaps Ben Cook has a similar experience that he could share with us, nothing like the real thing to add to academic expertise. And for sure there’s plenty of pro pilots to compare notes with, Ben could check with the Mildura “fog landing” pilots.
Lastly I have to take issue with Ben’s statement as follows:-
“Unless you’re a human performance subject matter expert, it’s important to be careful about making too many assumptions.”
Reading this literally one can take it to mean that an expert is entitled to make too many assumptions, presumably with impunity.
The whole sorry saga of the botched investigations, with the suspected wink and nod between CASA and the then newly independent ATSB, has been muddied with assumptions and obfuscation. Government Industries, headquartered in Can’tberra.
But with respect there might be other judgements that go right to the most critical element of cause. Quote:-
“exacerbates the upcoming problems for this crew: some critical weather information was either passed incorrectly or not at all.”
This surely is the question; and if “not at all” or “incorrectly” is true then surely it is very difficult to see that any appreciable blame should fall on the shoulders of the crew. Reading other analysis by PAIN contributors at the AuntyPru website, with time lines, it seems that if certain weather reports had been passed to the crew then they would have had reason, and sufficient fuel, for a diversion to an alternate airport.
This is the impression that is given, please correct if wrong.
Thus a failure to communicate critical weather information did not “exacerbate the upcoming problems” because to that point there was no problem(s).
In which case it then might also follow to give less weight to sleep deprivation as a factor of cause, though obvious enough that proper procedures seemed to be lacking and corrective action was called for.
The above is a comment submitted to the Australian Flying website but further points, hopefully to be taken as respectful criticism, here in addition.
In common with some other writings about the ditching its notable that the individuals named are not accorded with their full names or formal titles. They should be, along with some discussion regarding the role of the co-pilot.
In regard to Ben Cook’s question: “When was the last time you were confronted with extreme levels of stress that have the capacity to cause emotional instability and loss of fine motor skills?
I could say last year putting a C150 with engine trouble after takeoff into a wet paddock. Would that do? Or talking to the local ag pilot with three forced landings to his credit, one with a double mag failure, I expect he would know. Perhaps Ben Cook has a similar experience that he could share with us, nothing like the real thing to add to academic expertise. And for sure there’s plenty of pro pilots to compare notes with, Ben could check with the Mildura “fog landing” pilots.
Lastly I have to take issue with Ben’s statement as follows:-
“Unless you’re a human performance subject matter expert, it’s important to be careful about making too many assumptions.”
Reading this literally one can take it to mean that an expert is entitled to make too many assumptions, presumably with impunity.
The whole sorry saga of the botched investigations, with the suspected wink and nod between CASA and the then newly independent ATSB, has been muddied with assumptions and obfuscation. Government Industries, headquartered in Can’tberra.