As regards being poorly trained, the US trained fighters in the Iraqi army are completely useless

I suspect local/regional cultural factors and failures of leadership may explain some of the challenges faced by Iraqi armed forces.

I have to add it’s easy to see all the flaws in those plans now and how it quickly became a sinking ship the US just wanted to get out of, but to be fair it’s much harder to make a proper decision at the time when a decision needs to be made in general.

Agree, and that’s part of what I tried to address in #887 (and which you elaborated in even more critical terms). But even without hindsight, I suspect there is reason to say that the pre-war political discourse did offer important clues which the administration could have used to improve its situational awareness. What you said about bias, the momentum created by the Sept. 11 attacks and so on might add to the explanation of why the administration seemed so bent on going into Iraq despite the warnings. I know that it can be extremely challenging to make good calls while facing lots of uncertainty and different pressures, however (and I’m trying to be careful about this), I remain skeptical of whether the Bush Administration had the competence and integrity to deal with the situation in a way that would be good for the US, Iraq and other affected parties.

the US role is arguably somewhat overstated in the wider conflict that’s going on, plus the complicated mixed ethnic/religious situation in those countries which are easily abused by the local politicians or religious leaders to gain or retain power. And the history seems to prove that in these situations, once these “ghosts” are awaken, they are almost impossible to contain as the radicals are ready to go much further than the moderates and in the ensuing chaos people will turn to their groups to survive.

Won’t argue with that.

true that computers fly aeroplanes they can take off and land themselves anywhere in the world, all it needs is a human to guide it from the terminal to the runway.

Not entirely accurate, is it?

With the maturation of flight systems capable to handle many or all the phases of flight, is it still relevant to double task the onboard pilots with flight management and flight safety?
(…)
As a sad example, we can see here that this captain had to be task focused on flight management at the depends of the flight safety (his own safety btw). If the the priority were better set and his authority relevant, he could have dismissed himself from flying this day and a replacement tasked among a poll of available pilots (it is easier to have such poll with single seater aircraft and not-overloaded pilots with peripheral priorities (the specific phases of flight being transparent for their duty – safety being nearly identical from one flight to another).

It is evident to me (but this has to be demonstrated) that refocusing onboard pilots on managing safety and re-tasking the management of flight to computer systems and ground support teams will provide a net increase both in cost-efficiency and safety for the passengers. It is hence the way to go.

Not sure if I follow you correctly.

By “flight management” do you mean flying? I would argue that “management” and “safety” are by far and large the same thing. Managing a flight is all about conducting a safe (and efficient) operation. Human operators and automated systems work together and monitor each other more or less continuously to achieve reliability.

Don’t you think the captain would have reported not fit if he hadn’t felt up for it that day?

I agree that the sum of pressures put on airline pilots (deregulation, cutbacks etc.) can be unreasonably high in parts of today’s market – a concern raised by pilot unions – but I don’t know how relevant that is in this context. I would refrain from speculation at this stage.

I will generally argue that flying a plane safely, even complex ones equipped with advanced automation, still requires a fair bit of human craftsmanship.

I’m not doubting the opposition to the invasion – I’m doubting these ‘experts’ who now claim they knew EXACTLY how things would go after the invasion, discounting the complexity of the matter and how things could have gone either way – e.g. were it not for hardline Iraqi Shia leaders breaking the agreements, kicking the US forces out, aligning with Iran and grabbing all power to themselves which led Sunni tribes not wanting to be a part of that kind of Iraq and fight the jihadists anymore (which they kicked out to Syria earlier in cooperation with US forces). History is chock full of examples how various wars could have gone either way were it not for various coincidental events which greatly influenced the course of history. Admittedly, there was much less chance that things would go smoothly, but as I said, these ethnic divisions were constantly boiling under kept in check by force with tanks, helicopters and even chemical weapons so they would pop up sooner or later.

Hundreds of thousands died in those earlier wars, too. Where did I say things were better now? I just said that it’s preposterous to claim that these dictators were keeping things under control rather than starting wars and thus directly and indirectly causing death and instability in the Middle East and beyond and disturbing the flow of oil. The difference perhaps is they were keeping Islamists at bay (who were a direct threat to their rule) which seems to be primary judging criteria these days, but it’s forgotten that their oppressive actions also caused further radicalization of same Islamists who would turn up sooner or later once the secular national myths these dictators were imposing forcefully to legitimize their hold on power runs out of steam against ethnic and religious identities.

Most of what you’re saying makes sense to me, but I can’t help but think that the G. W. Bush Administration (among other key players) behaved in a questionable manner before (and during) the 2003 invasion. AFAIK, there was some “informed” opposition / warnings from former US national security advisers and military officers, academics etc., not to mention some Allied intelligence services, raising concerns about the reliability of some of the intelligence (i.e. “Curveball”), the uncertainty surrounding potential consequences of a large-scale invasion and occupation and so on. I think it’s fair to ask how reliable the Administration’s decision-making cycle really was given the information they had access to at the time.

I might be wrong, but the French prosecution (not the accident investigation board) has presented some early findings as pointing towards a probable cause, not as a conclusion. How parts of the media may have chosen to convey this is another matter.

It could be that the French authorities chose to go public this early due to a leak to the New York Times. I think this development should be addressed sooner or later.

This statement is a good one, IMO:

IFALPA strongly condemns leaking of CVR data

Please. Is it so hard to refrain from far-fetched speculation during the investigation?

My thoughts are with the bereaved. May they find the answers that they and many others seek.

I wish the accident investigators good luck in their mission. I sincerely hope the media activity over the last few days and its potential consequences will in no way affect the integrity of the investigation process.

(Not aimed at you, Boyle).

Fair enough! But I think it’s best to pursue a career where you can get the highest salary for all the effort you have put in to your academic achievements. Most airline pilots have a degree or its equivalent and quite often an MA or ‘better’.

Quite simply most aviation jobs are pretty poorly paid in comparison with equivalent jobs elsewhere. The answer seems to me to be obvious. Pursue a career elsewhere and treat aviation as a hobby. Let the airlines worry about the consequences of their folly. Don’t be a sacrifice for your enthusiasms!

Fair points. I’m currently pursuing a master’s degree. It has been a while since I realised that the airline industry is not the place to put all your bets as a pilot in this day and age.

A mail clerk is fine, but the Pope or Archbishop position is probably not going to happen for you. 🙂

Dang, there goes my dream.. :p