Posts about: "Normalization of Deviance" [Posts: 63 Page: 4 of 4]¶

We are going now a bit off topic , but there are indeed similarities between DCA and Uberlingen on how the families and lawyers react , and most likely how the judges will react in the end to find who are responsible and award damages to the families.
Lawyers represent both sides so sometimes it is shocking for us professionals who know the truth , confirmed by the official accident report to hear their arguments . .

In Uberlingen there were 13 holes in the cheese layer , any one of them closed and there would likely not have been an accident .For the judges to select only a few of them and concentrate on the person responsible for that hole is not what we, professionals would do , but this is how their system works. ,
Some of the holes were plain bad luck , but many others were man made. The BFU investigated and (tried to) explain all the holes, , the judges only a couple.

The similarities with DCA : on the accident itself , , for the controllers : normalization of deviance , being trained to do things which are not in the book .The judge will look at the book and say the controller did not follow the procedures . . Lawyers from the other side will be exploiting this loophole .
On the pilots : both the Russians and the Bluestreak did things not in their book either , for instance on reactions to TCAS alerts , or on accepting a procedure not briefed.. Lawyers are likely to exploits that as well.

We should not expect the truth coming from the legal system and even when the legal system brings out the truth in the end it does not necessary close the grief for the families . . Taking the Nantes Collison of 1973, , the final trial came 9 years after the event, and after major objections from the Government and the Military which tried to cover up the evidence. and had already delivered their version of the "facts: on the media and State television . .
Still today , 50 years later , the French Government and especially the Armeee de l'Air , still refuse the judgement conclusion ( saying that they are responsible for the collision ) , saying it was false , and still refuse to acknowledge the evidence . For the victim's families , mostly British and Spanish, the wound is still wide open as no-one was held responsible in the end , only "the State " in all its anonymity .

The PIC reported 'traffic in sight' when he clearly hadn't, he should never have asked for visual separation (normalisation of deviance).
We don't know of any gestures, if any pilot pointed at lights, but there is nothing in the CVR transcript that indicates the PF was aware of the traffic, or that the PIC pointed the traffic out to her; the PF certainly did not factor in the decision to request visual separation.

So when the PIC transmitted, what would you have the PF do? Ask the instructor where it is? Or trust the instructor, and concentrate on flying?
or did the PF know that neither of them could identify the traffic, but accepted it as normal?

Any student flying in some scenario where they don't have good vision themselves like wearing NVG gear or foggles puts an enormous amount of trust in their instructor.