The accident report confirms that neither the pilots nor controllers followed established procedures. This is not simply my idle speculation. The plane was not on the proper published approach for the airport. The controller attempted to give vectors to the aircraft to give it room to descend. The pilot declined to follow the instructions (possible violation). At this point, in my opinion, the controller should have said, "go around." Instead, the controller said, "cleared to land."
Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command.
Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.
The pilots busted their approach clearance. ATC could certainly have rescinded their landing clearance and ordered a go-around.
That said, ATC's responsibility is to keep planes from hitting each other and maintain an orderly flow of aircraft. They are not any way responsible for the safety of the flight. That is what the second pilot and all of the automated alarms are for. The crew just ignored all of them.
It takes a basic standard of professionalism to fly a jet airliner, and unfortunately neither of the crew members on this flight had it.
The approach was so bad that they were above the maximum gear extension speed when they tried to put the gear down, and so the Airbus refused to do it, and continuously yelled at them that it was doing this, but somehow they failed to notice.
Monitoring airspeed on approach is about the most basic thing a pilot does, and if you're off on speed and/or altitude by much less than these guys were, the absolutely clear requirement is to go around and try again (before you slam the engines on the ground and destroy them).
So, having twice ignored the ATC instruction to turn left to 180 away from the approach, you think there is a good reason to believe they would've heeded a direction to go around?
If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
No I don't think there is a good reason to believe they would have heeded a direction to go around. That doesn't mean that the direction should not have been given.
If ATC is to blame in this, it is primarily in excessive deference to the PIC.
My point, exactly, though it sounds like there may have been other irregularities in the procedures followed.
Yes, the pilot is in control of the aircraft, but unless and until an emergency is declared, ATC is in control of the airspace, and the pilots should obey any safe command.
Don't get me wrong, the pilots bear the majority of the responsibility, but ATC did not do their job properly, either.