Sure, captains have to sleep - the night before the flight, not one hour after partying and staying awake the whole next day. Also, he picked a time to nap when clearly his younger charges were not too confident about approaching weather. He just needed to stay focused 15 minutes longer. I don't know if Capt. Marc Dubois was drinker, but I am assuming he probably had a few given how pervasive alcohol is in today's world, not to mention pilots and romanticizing drinking and flying 'war stories'. I know a few pilots, and like other drinkers, they play down drinkings effects from the night before on their ability to fly.
The original OP post is about automated systems should not crash into an obstacle even if a driver summons it to do so. The AF447 article builds up a great story of error upon error, but I think the root cause was a captain asleep or too groggy at the wheel. Given the Airbus's safety record, I think it is ok to say the automation has most likely saved more lives than if we were 'pilot only' at this point.
This post is complete and utter nonsense in so many ways I don't know how to begin.
Relevant: I am a licensed pilot and am very familiar with the NTSB and similar agencies that do post crash analysis. They are among the most thorough and most scientific and objective inquiries that exist in the modern world.
You're making really serious allegations against actual people that are wholly unsupported.
Please point out where I deviated from the facts as pointed out in the article from Vanity Fair cited in this sub-thread, and to which I was replying to @dragontamer above. You are making allegations of my post being 'complete and utter nonsense', or that they are 'wholly unsupported'.
I am not sure what the NTSB has to do with the remarks I made. If anything, the head investigator relayed supporting allegations to the Vanity Fair author. Here is a quote from the article [1]:
>>The chief French investigator, Alain Bouillard, later said to me, “If the captain had stayed in position through the Intertropical Convergence Zone, it would have delayed his sleep by no more than 15 minutes, and because of his experience, maybe the story would have ended differently.
>>But, it became known, he had gotten only one hour of sleep the previous night. Rather than resting, he had spent the day touring Rio with his companion.
I accept that you are a licensed pilot. I am a technical diver, with many hours underwater fixing hydraulic and electrical systems, dealing with emergencies like hydraulic fluid leaks, and emergency repairs. I am use to tight situations, however, I am not an underwater accident or incident investigator, and my diving credentials only give me some insight into those types of incidents, that's it.
I have also checked other news accounts, and the off-duty flight attendant allegedly his mistress based on his own emails uncovered by investigators.
More from the Vanity Fair article:
>Marc Dubois, 58, was traveling with an off-duty flight attendant and opera singer. In the French manner, the accident report made no mention of Dubois’s private life, but that omission then required a finding that fatigue played no role, when the captain’s inattention clearly did.
I am not saying the static pitot tubes freezing had nothing to do with it, as obviously this was the kick-off to the problem. I am addressing the article, which engagingly enumerates the steps from how an equipment malfunction escalated to human error, and subsequently the associated behaviors and responses to an airline crash.
I was sincerely interested to see your reply to mine, since I am still not sure why you came down so strong on it, and to perhaps gain your insight on it.
The original OP post is about automated systems should not crash into an obstacle even if a driver summons it to do so. The AF447 article builds up a great story of error upon error, but I think the root cause was a captain asleep or too groggy at the wheel. Given the Airbus's safety record, I think it is ok to say the automation has most likely saved more lives than if we were 'pilot only' at this point.