Program logic bugs vs input/environmental errors

[eles via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 20:31:42 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 18:00:58 UTC, Piotrek wrote:
>> On Friday, 3 October 2014 at 15:43:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:

>
> As one that has read the original report integrally, I think 
> that you have taken a bad example: despite the autopilot was 
> disengaged, the stall alarm ringed a pletora of times.
>
> There's no real alternative to the disengagement of the 
> autopilot is that fundamental parameter is compromised.
>
> It took the captain only a few moment to understand the problem 
> (read the voice-recording transcription), but it was too late...

For the curious, the flight analysis here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

Captain's first error was to leave the cockpit when approaching 
storm. Second, was to give command to the lower-experienced 
co-pilots. Not only for quality of the flight, but also for the 
quality of the team. His third error was to have neglected the 
fact that the radar was not correctly set up. And his most 
important (and final) error was to not take commands back while 
coming back in to the cockpit.

And it was airliner's fault to embark on transatlantic flights 
just one experienced man and two very low experienced copilots.

This is a beginner mistake:

"the insanity of pulling back on the controls while stalled"

and this passage resumes it quite well:

"the captain of the flight makes no attempt to physically take 
control of the airplane. Had Dubois done so, he almost certainly 
would have understood, as a pilot with many hours flying light 
airplanes, the insanity of pulling back on the controls while 
stalled"

If you read the analysis you get scared.