"Greg Copeland" wrote in message

Is the above not an accurate account?

The report is accurate for its time. Remember, you're reading a 1977
revision of a 1974 report, said revision due to additional knowledge and
experience gained in the interim. At the time of the accident, great hubbub
was raised about pilot error, when in fact, at the time, there was little
known about windshear (the term, iirc, was even new in those days). There
wasn't a great deal of science (by today's standards) on the optical
illusions associated with rain or black-hole approaches, mostly anecdotal
advice. The insidious synergistic nature of the two when combined was
unanticipated. The conclusion was pilot error because that's all that was
left, but the CVR shows that in the cockpit the perception was that nothing
was wrong. It wasn't that they missed cues. They didn't even know the cues
were there, or that they might need to be looking for them.

My point is not to rehash this accident, but merely to point out that there
have been many accidents over the years ascribed to pilot error that led to
acquired knowledge and understanding which later allowed us to realize that
certain pilots may not have been "at fault", but merely flew into
circumstances they could not be aware of.

I don't know if, nor am I claiming that, the Lexington accident might fall
into this category, but when a professional crew makes what appears to be a
series of inexplicable choices, you must look for reasons.