GalaxyFlyer wrote:Has aviation training sunk to the point that we do not teach, and do not expect, pilots to be aware of their energy state (airspeed and altitude) and correct gross deviations?
I don’t think that should be the take away from either this accident, the SFO accident, or the MCAS accidents. While a good pilot should have been able to prevent those accidents, does that mean an average pilot would ? The data suggests that some average pilots are struggling with priorities in information being thrown at them, not necessarily with flying.
I don’t think it’s really acceptable these days when we use automation in so many ways not to have automation to help out with the priorities.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:That we expect the airplane to save the crew?
That comment reminds me what people use to say when wearing seatbelts or helmets were made compulsory. I’m a good driver, I’ll never crash, I don’t need a seatbelt.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:This crew even added thrust, let the throttles come back to idle and DID NOTHING to correct the situation by disconnecting the A/T system.
I explained that earlier, the FO was PF, he increased thrust, the CN took over and during the hand over thrust was brought back to IDLE by the aircraft. Need to keep this in context that this was a late cabin ready for landing report, training flight, glide slope from above, late landing checklist.
There have been so many threads on here about how the Boeing is superior to anything else because the pilots have feedback from the controls, and the throttles move. This accident like the SFO and MCAS accident highlight the flaw with that argument, unless you are aware of what the aircraft is doing, those moving control columns and throttles are just ornaments.
